Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Rove Formation/1

The Rove Formation

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Rove_Formation/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist Focus issues as the article appears to be on much more than the Rove Formation AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess, I don't even see how it was promoted to GA in the first place. To describe the article as C class would be generous. The titular "Rove Formation" is never defined or explained. Most of the article discusses orogenies and other formations, before veering wildly off course into the Fur Trade and Endangered Flora. It is completely unfocused and overbloated. The sole contributor, hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article seems to have been improved since this nomination. I can see no mention of Fur trades and there is a definition in the lead sentence. Still has the endangered flora section, but that seems relevant enough as to not fail the focus criteria and is easy to remove if it is still a major issue. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is difficult for a non-geologist to understand, but in geology a "Formation" refers to a specific unit of rock with defined characteristics. Compare this article to another geological formation article like the Marcellus Shale. The marcellus shale is the only other geological formation GA (other than the Touchet Formation, which is a late pleistocene superficial deposit), and I think you'll agree that the Marcellus Shale artcle is the better article. The problem is that with this article, while there is a lot of information, most of it is irrelevant to the rove formation itself, and the rove formation is poorly defined. You could rename this article "the geological history of Minnesota" and lose pretty much nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)