Talk:Pilbara craton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pilbara craton 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: February 17, 2008}

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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Earth sciences Portal

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.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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.