From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Glacier was one of the 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
October 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 20, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
February 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Glaciers (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Glacier 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

North Cascades?[edit]

In this page, all of the images have a text explaining the country the picture is taken in, except one further down. It just says, North Cascades. I had no idea what this mysterious "North Cascades" is, so I clocked on the link. "Aah it's in the US, why doesn't it say?" The answer is simple. This text is not neutral. I've noticed this on many other pages too, so I will edit wherever find it. Don't revert my edits because many people does not know what the heck all of the things in the US are. -- (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

General Question[edit]

I just visited the discussion page on an unrelated subject and discovered i had a new message that revealed an edit i had made had been reverted (an edit made to the Glacier page)

Now I have never edited this page (in fact i don't recall ever having visited it before today)

Why is my username being sullied? (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not established a username, or if you have, you aren't using it. Someone else probably made the edit that was questioned.[1] To avoid such problems, you may choose your own username.[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another general question: a picture of a "black ice" glacier in the article begs the question; what makes the ice black? Can't seem to find the answer, other than roadway black ice.Ebrockway (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The ice is black due to imbedded fine rock dust. Apcbg (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Polar deserts[edit]

"Conversely, areas of the Arctic, such as Banks Island, and the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica are considered polar deserts, as they receive little snowfall despite the bitter cold." I think this is wrong. Certainly, the dry valleys are kept dry by katabatic winds (as their article says). The actual snowfall there isn't too relevant (depending on exactly what you mean by it) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Polar desert makes much the same point. But most of the interior of Antarctica is polar desert. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial superiority[edit]

I removed the following:

with winter temperatures believed to reach −100 °C (−148 °F) in parts,[1][not in citation given]

because the it was not on the page number noted, because the source is from 1938, and because the source seems to be pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority. The title of the chapter beginning on p. 59, for example, is "Glaciation and the Supremacy of Europe". I haven't read enough to conclude it's a racist book, but it seems to tend towards this direction. I think it should be dropped. Ufwuct (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Merged article[edit]

There was a proposal, dating back to December 2009, to merge Ogive (glacier) with Glacier#Ogives. It was never discussed, but there was nothing in the former that was not done better in the latter. I have therefore performed the merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Making an article better is not just about removing content like this. While some of the edits recently made have been improvements, nothing has been added to the references, so the article, while it did need a lot of work before, seems to be going a bit backward now. This is a pretty broad subject that is a top-importance rated article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers so what it needs is to be comprehensive. It is no way near a Good Article level at this point and may need to be downgraded from "B"-class to "C"-class.--MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the need for comprehensiveness, but the original was, well, bad. It had been translated directly from Spanish, and that showed. Sentences like "The top 50 metres (160 ft) of the glacier, being under less pressure, are more rigid; this section is known as the fracture zone, and mostly moves as a single unit, over the plastic-like flow of the lower section." disrupt readability. Explanations like "This process is known as plucking, and it is produced when subglacial water penetrates the fractures and the subsequent freezing expansion separates them from the bedrock. When the ice expands, it acts as a lever that loosens the rock by lifting it" are not, in my opinion, clear enough to get their points across. Large amounts of redundancy--such as a section devoted to defining terms defined better elsewhere in the page--bloated the article. And details such as which Alaskan glaciers are popular with cruise ships just seemed unnecessary to me. Now, I've cut the article down a lot, and I probably deleted some stuff I shouldn't have deleted in the process. I'll try to fix that. But I don't think there are too many unnecessary deletions. This article just needs entirely new content. And yeah, GAN was dumb on my part. Not sure why I did it. Just looking for feedback (this is my first major revision); wasn't the best way to go about it. Thanks, though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imareaver (talkcontribs) 05:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if the article or sections of it were translated from Spanish...the website has many editors for which English is a second language and an article such as this one is likely to attract an international audience. Overall, I can see some of the trimming, though it is a lot, as the article went from nearly 60K to 43k...a cut of nearly a third. I would reword and reinsert the section (as shown in the diff provided in my earlier comment) the section "Glacier comes from French..." Obviously, the needs to be rewritten, but that or something similar seems mandatory. There are other areas that were trimmed but that one stood out in a cursory glance.--MONGO 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the comments on etymology. While I'm sure it could be improved, it is important to include in the article, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Active glaciers?[edit]

The Thule_Air_Base entry mentions active glaciers (without a link), and there's a bunch of other entries that do, some implying this refers to one with an area larger than some (unspecified) threshold. Is there anyone who knows what the threshold is, and may be able to add a definition to this entry? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have heard that anything less than 25 acres (10 ha) is considered less than the area necessary to be considered a glacier. Anything smaller than that is just ice or semi-permanent snow.--MONGO 11:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Looked around a bit more and I found which seems to confirm that figure as the boundary, but not sure it's authoritative. Still useful to have that around, thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Glaciologist Mauri Pelto (User:Peltoms is where I have heard that figure from in the past. I'll email him and ask if he knows of some reliable sources.--MONGO 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Glacier diagram.svg[edit]

Glacier diagram.svg

I see this article has several diagrams. I note, however, that this one is missing. Perhaps editors more familiar with this topic can judge whether it is worthy of being added? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Huntington, Ellsworth; The Character of Races; p. 55. ISBN 040509955X