Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of North America

Geology of North America

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the North American continent has one shield but many orogens?

• Comment: Hook not directly sourced, but in context of all the sources used. It is a broad overview article which deserves a broad hook. But I'm open for suggestions :)

Created by Al Climbs (talk). Nominated by Tobias1984 (talk) at 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

• The hook is not only "not directly sourced," it's not included in the article. It is contradicted by a caption, also. "The Canadian Shield can be seen on a map showing only metamorphic rocks. The shield is the large brown area in the northeast of the continent. A similar structure can also be seen with different rock types." A structure similar to a shield, or a similar structure, meaning another shield? This article has many other problems. However, if the hook is not only "not directly sourced," but does not appear anywhere in the article, that is a big front-page no no. The paragraph about the Canadian shield is also difficult to follow, and the title headings are confusing in this area. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review the article. The caption didn't contradict the hook, but was was a little too much jargon on my behalf. I reworded it. How does the hook "DYK that the Canadian Shield is the largest outcrop of metamorphic rocks on the North American continent" sound? I'm still going to look through the headlines and see if they are coherent. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't find that in the article, can you link to the appropriate section? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some strange original research in this article; it does not belong on the main page. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can't point out the sentences, then it is probably not a valid criticism of this article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed out specifics, you just say I didn't instead of addressing them. Another editor just reverts. Article improvement sure isn't wanted, just a score! And I though it was an encyclopedia, not a playground. -198.228.216.153 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know where you pointed out a specific list of sentences that you think are OR. Can you post them here? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know where I said I pointed out a specific list of sentences that I think are OR. Can you post my comment here? This article is badly written, disorganized, confusing, contradictory, and it's owned by editors who are currently running random google searches to try to figure out an outline as they use a book they don't have and an obscure and unavailable book in German as the recommended reading for the article. It should not go on the main page. Wikipedia discredits itself too easily with bad articles on the main page, I template them, then someone gets irritated that an article with a template is on the main page, so I get told to work on them before they go on the main page, but DYK editors only welcome rubber stamps. I am far more irritated when bad science is paraded on the main page than anyone should be irritated that the bad science is pointed out to the world--it's better to spread it? So, Tobias, continue shooting the messengers. Not much I can do to stop that, when people with knowledge in specific areas are held in such deep disdain by people who are capable of doing multiple google searches and distilling that information into articles. Google away -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)