Talk:Pilbara Craton

→

Pilbara Craton was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pilbara Craton is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Pilbara Craton 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.

There is a lot of literature on the Pilbara craton with new studies just now coming out that will have to be analyzed, categorized and sorted out to be integrated into this article. Beyond a doubt, this article will undergo major revisions, especially in terms of how to organize the topics, in the near future. This will also be the case with the Slave, Superior, Kaapvaal and Yilgarn cratons. We also need an article on the Ukranian shields and the Voronezh Massif. Any editing assistance is appreciated.Valich 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded at the amount of work done here, but I think that some more effort could be made to make the text a little less impenetrable. Certainly any diagrams would be greatly appreciated, especially basic maps, etc. I've put this in the Geology of Australia category. Rolinator 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some MENTION should be made of the 3.5 billion-year-old Apex chert which has O₂-producing cyanobacteria microflora as described by J. William Schopf in 1993. See Schopf (1999), Cradle of Life, pp. 71-100. ISBN 0-691-00230-4. ♥ Dr.Bastedo 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

This article needs some more improvement before it can pass GA.

You should link Ga to the article for the unit of measurement, so that the layperson can understand what is being discussed.

The article is quite long so the lead needs to be expanded further to adequately summarise it

There are some MOS violations in the headers. The headers shoul dnot be all capped unless they are proper nouns. Things like "First Major Tectonic Cycle" should not be all capped

Elements of the periodic table that you refer to should be wikilinked

This article lacks sources badly. In discussing models and predictions, they should be clearly attributed to a scientist(s), instead of passing the models'predictions as Wikipedia's verdict

You should not put counters in the main text such as 1), 2) etc

Another thing is that in places, a whole paragraph of a scientist's study has been quoted verbatim; this might be skating close to a copyright infringement, unless the words of the scientist were of some historical value because they became iconic, such large scale quoting should be avoided. This is done in many paragraphs

The notes need to be formatted in a more normal find of way, so that the external links to the papers don't appear at the end with just are number but are attached to the title. {{cite journal}} provides an easy way for this to work. That way the colume numbers etc are bolded automatically. Also, use 105–120 for page ranges rather than the simple hyphen like 105120.

See also section should be before the refs

Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

This article was flagged for copy-pasting, which automatically listed it for review at the copyright problems board. I am concerned that issues here may be susbtantial.

The first issue I see relates to this collection of abstracts (see duplication detector report.

There are also seems to be some copying from:

[1] (duplication detector report
[2] (Duplication detector would not detect the source document, but, cf. "Geochemical signatures in these thin sections of bedded chert (3–6 meters thick) suggest that they were most likely formed by weak hydrothermal activity associated with hot-spot volcanism." (article) "The geochemical signatures of these three sections suggest that they were most likely formed by low-T, weak hydrothermal activity that may have been associated with hot-spot volcanism." (source); there may be more matches, but that was the phrase that triggered the source detection.)
[3] (Again, dup det won't work, but this is the extensive quotation that begins "Geological and geochemical evidence shows that the Warrawoona Group was erupted onto a continental basement". I see nothing transformative in this use; we seem to be using the words just because we want the information, which may not be fair use.)
[4] (cf. "The basalts on either side of the unconformity are remarkably similar, with N-MORB-normalised enrichment factors for LILE, Th, U and LREE (low rare earth elements) greater than those for Ta, Nb, P, Zr, Ti, Y and M-HREE (high rare earth elements), and initial e(Nd, Hf) compositions which systematically vary with Sm/Nd, Nb/U and Nb/La ratios."; "The basalts either side of the unconformity are remarkably similar, with N-MORB-normalised enrichment factors for LILE, Th, U and LREE greater than those for Ta, Nb, P, Zr, Y and M-HREE."(source))
[5] (Dup det I'm not sure if this all from overly extensive quotation or if some is used outside of quotation, but you'll note that three different abstracts are copied here - footnotes 7-9)
[6] (Dup Det; this was triggered by the sentence "The breccias are thought to represent steep conjugate fault zones developed by local trans-tension" which is reproduced in the article with minimal alterations: "The breccias are thought to represent steep conjugate fault zones developed by local trans-tension." "The breccias are inferred to represent steep conjugate fault zones developed by local transtension." (source) Close paraphrasing of this sort may not hit high on duplication detector, but it differs from the source by one word and a hyphen.)
[7] (not from a quote; the unsourced extensive quote that finishes out that paragraph is evidently from Blewett as well)

Again some, but not all, of the copying is in the form of extensive quotation, which is itself forbidden by policy, but some of it is not. I have found copying or close paraphrasing from multiple sources that was not set off as a quotation. See Wikipedia:Copy paste. It may need to be rewritten, unless we are able to verify license from sources that have been substantially used.

This is far beyond my ability to repair. It seems that some of this article may be original, but a good bit of it is copied or closely paraphrased from other sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Pilbara craton → Pilbara Craton – caps are appropriate for a proper name such as this, a specific geographical entity and for consistency across WP - as discussed at WP geology

Done, Vsmith (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilbara Craton. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209234059/http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/documents/gswa/AR01_02techpaperLB.pdf to http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/documents/gswa/AR01_02techpaperLB.pdf

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) 16:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]