Talk:Algoman orogeny/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of this article and it looks to be at or about GA-level, but I'm first going to work my way through the article in a bit more detail.

• Overview -

• The first paragraph states: No broad blocks as old as 3 Ga are found in Precambrian shields. Toward the end of the Archean, however, some of these blocks or terranes came together to form larger blocks welded together by greenstone belts.[2]. Ga is not defined
• In the same sentence, it is suggested that "blocks" and terranes are alternatives/comparable/identical (it's not clear what the relationship is, but the terms "crustal block" and named blocks do occur in terranes). We then have blocks (or terrances) becoming bigger blocks, well yes but presummably they could be bigger terranes (the next paragraph is all about terraces)?

• Tectonics -

• Looks OK.

• Superior province -

• Looks OK.

• Slave province & Nain province -

• These two sections Look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• Looks OK.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm awarding this article GA-status

Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)