Talk:Geology of Dorset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Geology of Dorset was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 27, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.	United Kingdom Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.
	This article needs a map.
	This article needs census data.

	Earth sciences Portal Geology of Dorset 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] GA review fail

Lack of citations. Needs a lot of improvements. Sushant gupta 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And basic fact checking - eg Gault Clay is not Tertiary! More seriously it does not mention that half the county is part of the Hampshire Basin, which indicates a more general problem with such articles. Most counties are not remotely defined by geology. There should be articles about regions that make some sort of geological sense, and a brief geology section in the main county article linking to the relevant region(s). The map is a valuable piece of work (but see my comments about spellings on commons)! Pterre (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair enough to have an article on the geology of a county, as thet will be where many people will start to understand the regional geology. These inappropriately subdivided article can refer to an article on the broader structure. However also a norrowly focussed article can allow treatment of beds, formations and fossils which could be too much detail for a broader article. It should be possible to improve so that it qualifies for GA though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, I'm not about to propose the article for deletion. My point is that we should probably avoid people writing an article about the geology of every single county just for the sake of it. I've probably picked on a bad example, as Dorset has a lot of geology, even though the county boundary has no geological significance (and more to the point has changed since I began studying geology). In most cases a summary section in the county article ought to be adequate, linked to relevant regional stuff. In particular we need to avoid large repeated chunks. Pterre (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)