Talk:Algoman orogeny

Algoman orogeny has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 25, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
July 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Algoman orogeny is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer review

Noleander has kindly provided a lot of new comments on the peer review page. Have a look! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Algoman orogeny/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of this article and it looks to be at or about GA-level, but I'm first going to work my way through the article in a bit more detail.

Overview -

The first paragraph states: No broad blocks as old as 3 Ga are found in Precambrian shields. Toward the end of the Archean, however, some of these blocks or terranes came together to form larger blocks welded together by greenstone belts.[2]. Ga is not defined
In the same sentence, it is suggested that "blocks" and terranes are alternatives/comparable/identical (it's not clear what the relationship is, but the terms "crustal block" and named blocks do occur in terranes). We then have blocks (or terrances) becoming bigger blocks, well yes but presummably they could be bigger terranes (the next paragraph is all about terraces)?

Tectonics -

Looks OK.

Superior province -

Looks OK.

Slave province & Nain province -

These two sections Look OK.

WP:Lead -

Looks OK.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status

Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Algoman orogeny. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/minnesota/geology/prehistoricminnesotageology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Algoman orogeny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]