Talk:Mineralogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Mineralogy 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. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Mineralogy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 16, 2007 |
As not being at all knowledgable in this area, shouldn't this be article be filed under mineral instead, and information on the science itself be placed here? A little linking shouldn't hurt either. Otherwise a fine article indeed, jam packed with fact :-) --Anders Törlind
Is the above comment still relevant? The page it refers to seems to have been modified to describe the science, not just minerals. --David R Dick
Contents |
[edit] List of good books?
Does anyone else think that a list of good books in the subject of mineralogy would be a good idea? --David R Dick
Yes, as long as it contains Putnis' "Introduction to Mineral Sciences", which is a wonderful textbook!
[edit] Earth science?
I think that mineralogy is not only an "Earth science" anymore. Maybe something about mineralogy of other Solar System planets, asteroids and meteorites could be mentioned by somebody who knows more on this topic. Jan.Kamenicek 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geology Project. Please Help
If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. Solarapex 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an interest in starting a page for J.F. Henckel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annlanding (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History Section
I pretty much added the entire history section, which has beefed up the article quite a bit from where it was before. Historical background for mineralogy is important, but if someone could clarify and expand upon the modern mineralogy section, that would be great too.--PericlesofAthens 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just added all the subsections to 'Modern Mineralogy'. The article is looking very good, I think good enough for featured article status. What do others here think?--PericlesofAthens 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA on hold
I've placed this article's Good Article nomination on hold, for minor breaches of the manual of style, and because it doesn't read very comfortably in places. The criteria are available here.
It could relatively easily be brought up to speed by addressing the following points:
- The Lede section is very short for an article of this length. Expand?
- The quotes from Shen Kuo are very long. Is this necessary? Are they really adding to the article? Truncate if possible.
- Lists - remove or expand as per MOS advice
- Scope of article - whilst it's reasonably broad in its coverage, it goes into perhaps uneccessary detail in the history section, whilst brushing over Modern Mineralogy. These should be contracted and expanded appropriately.
- References are restricted to the historical section. Try to incorporate more into 'Modern Mineralogy'.
- Jargon-watch - there's a lot about in the Modern Mineraology section, even for someone who's au fait with the subject. Rewrite this in a sense that's more accessible for the casual reader.
Those criticisms aside, the writing style on the whole is very good, and the article is nearly there... I'm afraid it just needs a few loose ends tying off!
All the best, Verisimilus T 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just got rid of the quotes of Shen Kuo, converting the info of them into summarizing, single-sentence prose.--PericlesofAthens 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA failure
The points above were not all addressed. Feel free to resubmit the article once they have all been met. Verisimilus T 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
