This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be near GA status and could benefit from a review before submitting it as a candidate.
" it is known as the Kenoran orogeny in Canada." - reads very clunky. Suggest re-word first sentence: "The Algoman orogeny (also known as K.O.) was a mountain building episode .." DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
There is no See Also section: are there any similar articles that readers may want to know about? Done A comprehensive article doesn't necessarily need a See Also section, but I found one link that seems relevant.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"Continents were much smaller than today; they were a series of granitic nuclei a few kilometers across" - When? Also, this sounds like all continents in the world were only a few km across ... that cannot be right. Done That detail seems dubious; I have removed some of this and replaced it by introductory material earlier in the article.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Red links: "Wabigoon subprovince" etc. See
WP:RED: if it is unlikely that WP will ever have an article on these subprovinces, then remove the links. Done - I unlinked them; they don't seem likely to have separate articles.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"protocontinents" - Im not a geologist, but it seems odd that such a fundamental term is red-linked. Can another term be used? Does WP have an article on it by another name? Do the sources use that term? Why has no editor yet created the article? Done - I think "protocontinent" is an informal term, and I have replaced it by "terrane".
RockMagnetist (
talk)
05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Section name: "Age, names and location" - Is there a more pithy phrase available? "Identification", or "Overview" or "Characteristics"? DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Sidebar image: The image of the upper-right sidebar is obviously useful, but it is rather large, and seems to crowd the top of the article. I'd recommend moving it down into the body of the article, and putting a smaller image (or nothing) at the top. The sidebar contain a terse overview of the article's topic ... not too much detail. DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Provinces? - The hierarchical breakdown of the region into provinces is not clear. I gather from the table of contents that the thing is divided into three provinces (Sup, Slave, Nain). That should be explained and made clear in the prose _before_ the first (Superior Province) section on a particular province. Done - This is done in the lead and the overview.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Lead: it says the AO is a "mountain-building episode" ... but the text reads as if the AO is a location, or a region, or a formation. I suppose it could be both an event (in the past) as the present physical manifestation of that event ... but that duality should be made clear in the lead. ✗Not done - I don't see any text where the AO could be interpreted as anything but an event.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Caption: "This is an illustration of how the Minnesota ..." - no need to tell the reader they are looking at a picture. Just start the caption with "The Minnesota River ..." DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Terminology - The article assumes that the reader is familiar with geological terms, and uses some rather specialized words without explanation. WP articles on scientific topics are not required to be tutorials, and are not required to define everything. But this article is a bit intimidating to the layman. Top priority is providing blue links to other articles so the reader can educate themself; but you may want to consider adding some more layman-friendly material, especially at the start of each section. Done - I have defined a lot of the terms, added several links and put more introductory material in.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Grammar - "During the Late Archean time ... was the mountain-building episode known" - Doesnt read well. Try "During the Late Archean time a mountain-building episode, known as ..., ". Also, "time" seems colloquial ... shouldn't that be "eon"? DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Clarify: "Most greenstone belts, with all of their ..." - It this talking about the belts in the AO? or all belts in the world? ✗Not done - Everything in this section is about the Algomen orogeny, so I don't think that should be necessary to clarify it.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
"Also about 2,700 million years ago ..." - that is a few paragaphs after the other "2,700 ago" ... so the "also" may confuse the reader, or make them pause to look up. Consider eliminating the "also", or reword to specifically refer back to the other contemporaneous event. DoneRockMagnetist (
talk)
23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Map comparison: the map
File:World geologic provinces.jpg shows "orogen" zones in the world but the region of the AO is not indicated on the map as an orogen .. am I reading the map wrong? or is the AO too small to show on the map? Done - this map paints with a broad brush. Most of the orogens marked still have mountains. A lot has happened in the Canadian shield since the Algomen orogeny, so it is classified as "shield".
RockMagnetist (
talk)
05:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply
GA status: I think the article is close to GA status. It has great sources, nice diagrams, appears to be complete, and uses decent prose. I think, after addressing the items above, you can take it to GAN with confidence.
Thank you for your excellent comments, Noleander. I have not quite addressed all of them, but I think I'm close enough to nominate the article for GA.
RockMagnetist (
talk)
06:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)reply