Talk:Cesar-Ranchería Basin/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lappspira (talk · contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The article seem quite good at first glance. I have contributed in plenty of geology articles so I can see it uses adequate terminology but it need to trimmed down at places to not be overly technical.

some things I think need to be clarified: I will do a quick check for image copyright once their numbers are reduced. A check on Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives a " Violation Unlikely" (24.8% confidence) result.
 * Mean annual temperatures are those estimated for environment where fossils deposited. That should be clear as to avoid confusion with present-day climate.
 * Etymology section way too short. It should be integrated somewhere else. Also etymology is also mentioned in "description".
 * There is an excess of pictures that lead to stacking, producing even blank spaces.
 * There is one obvious fact issue: the basin does not contain fossils of the first Neotropic forest, it contains the oldest known fossil assemblage (as of 2009) representing a Neotropical forest. Older Neotropical forests are not only possible but also likely.
 * Various references have problems.
 * Reference no. 5, "The 10 biggest coal mines in the world", is not properly formatted.
 * Reference no. 6, "Cerrejón", is not properly formatted.
 * Many other online references lack access-date and other basic information.
 * Some lists are of lesser relevance like "municipalities". These, if present, could be in collapsed state as to avoid taking up too much space.
 * Fossil and stratigraphy tables, albeit helpful should be in collapsed state as to bring the prose to forefront of the article.
 * Citations are needed in various places. Look up for "citation needed" inline templates.
 * In the economic geology section there is no mention of worl-class open pit mines nor is it clear if gold comes from modern place deposits or is mined from the basin strata.
 * Note that the nominator has not edited here for a long time, and I had to fail one of his other nominations for lack of response. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is sad. The article was promising. Lappspira (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Lappspira, it's been over a month since you opened this, and the nominator hasn't edited since last October. I think it's time to close the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, thank you for the reminder! Lappspira (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)