Wikipedia:Peer review/Rove region/archive1

Rove region
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like the feedback, AND I'd like to nominate the article for Featured Article status. I chose this topic because I live within 100 miles of the Rove Formation, have an interest in geology and it was a redlink.

In the discussion page of the article I do have three concerns relating to the article.

Thanks so much, I do throughly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

After perusing the article, there are a few things that stick out and need to be fixed. Hopefully this has given you something to work with, although not very detailed about the prose itself. Regards,  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from Fetchcomms
 * Is this officially the Rove Formation or region, and which is capitalized/lowercase? if the article is mainly about the formation, then move the page to that name, otherwise, maybe refer to it as the region in the lede section?
 * Some wikilinks in the lede might help especially for those unfamiliar with geology
 * first section heading needs to be level 2
 * give images captions and maybe cut down their size, especially the one in the first section and the one under puckwunge formation
 * for measurements/units like 10-mile (16-km), etc. use the convert template
 * image under human history is broken
 * references are cited ok, but format should be fixed: links need titles, authors, publishers, accessdates can be changed to DD Month YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD? etc. as well. Maybe use cite web or other citation templates?
 * also for references: yahoo! answers and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable, and the one that is complicated to get to, just put the main link anyone can access should be fine


 * Thank you for your feedback. It is officially Rove Formation. The red link was Rove region. I'll correct it.


 * I didn't want to clutter up the lead with wikilinks. They are in the main article. If you feel strongly they should be there, I'll add them and delete them from the text.


 * Good eye! I thought I had caught all of those. I have corrected it now.


 * I KNOW I need captions. When your message came up, I was in the process of trying to determine why the captions weren't showing. It appears to my eye that I entered them the same as the image that has a caption. Can you tell why the captions aren't showing? I do notice that both of these are maps. Does that make a difference?


 * I did downsize the first map. It didn't show that much detail anyway (the Rove Formation is that narrow grey area at the border).
 * I resized the Puckwunge Formation image; not by much - the text on the map is important.


 * I'll insert the convert template


 * I just uploaded that image to Commons and noticed it didn't work. I'm hoping there is a delay from the time an image is uploaded until it "shows up". If not, I'll troubleshool tomorrow.


 * I'll look again at the citation you referred to.


 * OK, maybe I'll put hidden notes for the Yahoo and answers references. I'll take card of the Grand Portage citation. I'll look at the complicated one again; as I remember I couldn't access that from the web address, so I have to enter by the "back door".

Thank for your help and comments. I'll continue working on the article!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Betty, I'm glad to see that there is finally an article on this important feature. Suggestions and comments:
 * Use the "Move" button at the top of the page and move the article to "Rove Formation". The talk page will go with it automatically, and the "Rove region" will remain as a redirect.
 * Confine the article to the formation itself and its geological aspects-- I think ecology goes too far afield as there really is no way to differentiate the flora and fauna atop this area that those of the Duluth Complex, Saganaga batholith (another idea for an article, or section within your other new article), etc. It is valuable material, but would more properly belong to other articles on the region.
 * For the same reason, I'm not sure the human history section is needed, at least to the present extent. It is already covered elsewhere.  Keep your focus here on the Rove formation.  (As in this case geology did influence human history, you may want to simply cut back this section, at least the last paragraph.)
 * An example of this: When Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben was first created it concentrated on geology.  It then accreted a lot of stuff on human history and culture, until that material was split off into Ottawa Valley.  Now the article is refocused on geology, and addresses human history only as influenced by geology.  It shows how you could handle similar material here.


 * You should get some print sources, and not rely so much on web sources. A good general work on the region's geology is  It mentions the Rove in several places, but I haven't looked in detail to see if adds anything more than you already have.
 * I've looked at this source, and pp. 175–76 would be a good source on how geology influences history; in this case, the Grand Portage.   Kablammo (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this. Kablammo (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at some of your sources and I think your text in places uses too much of the source language. To avoid unintentional plagiarism, here's a suggestion:  Rather than copy-and-paste text into your editing page, print out the source, and refer to it while drafting.  That makes it more difficult to simply adopt the wording and phrasing of the source.  Use your own words.
 * The article is a long way from Featured Article status. You need a consistent citation format, with the requisite elements for each source, including author, title, publisher, and date, and page numbers if available.


 * Thank you for your help.

I will move the to article to Rove Formation.

I included some of the ecology because those plants are found only on the north-facing cliff faces in this part of the continent. Otherwise those plants are usually found in sub-Arctic environments. I had realized I had too much emphasis on the ecology and had already cut half of my text. Would it be inappropriate to mention that the micro climate of the north-faing cliffs is unique for this part of the continent, and cite just the names of the flora?


 * I just finished cutting down on the verbiage about the flora. After your comments I did remove half the verbiage and tonight I removed the subsection headings, so each plant has a paragraph. This also resulted in making the flora seem less bulky in the table of contents.

I have done an article on the Saganagan Orogeny; it should be in the Peer Review process. I didn't find much (online) on the batholith.

I will cut back on the human history portion.


 * Earlier I cut about half the content of the Human history. If possible I'd like to leave some in because the Grand Portage is completely within the Rove Formation; I think it adds a human interest slant to the article. BUT, if I'm off base, please let me know.

I do have a copy of "Minnesota's Rocks and Waters" by Schwartz and Theil, 1963. The Rove Formation is mentioned several times, but in no great detail. I used it mainly to affirm information retrieved from inline. I'll go the library to find more reference works.


 * Needless to say, with a 1963 copywrite date, they give NO coverage to plate tectonics! lol

I do print out my sources; I did try to reword them, apparently I wasn't too successful. I'll work on rewording.

Fetchcomms also talked about citation. Last night I printed off the guidelines and haven't had time to work on that yet. I will.


 * I continue to work on this. It's not difficult (I have two screens open on the monitor), it's just tedious.

Again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. I will work on them. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Betty. It may have been another article where I was struck by similarity of language.  If there is a direct relationship between geology and flora, by all means include it.  I think a trip to a library would be helpful-- those sources won't disappear, and are more likely to be well-regarded by reviewers (especially if they are peer-reviewed, or by known experts) than are many on-line sources.
 * On citation, if you do not want to use parantheticals (which most do not), you can either just cite the source directly in the footnotes (eg. Midcontinent Rift and Traverse Gap) or list the sources separately (eg. Geology of Minnesota and Duluth Complex).  There are variations of these, but just be consistent.  Kablammo (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the images, don't forget to add the |thumb parameter. Otherwise, good work on the improvements; as I don't know much about geology, I can't provide much advice about the content, but the only thing now for me is fixing those refs! Very nice work so far, I was pleasantly surprised by this article's coverage.  fetch  comms  ☛ 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you so much for your help. I really do appreciate it. (I haven't gotten to the library yet, but do plan to go.)Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this an article on a geologic formation? If so, this article seriously lacks focus. If not, it is confusingly named. It looks more like an article about the geology of a region. Either way, the lede and location sections are not detailed enough. Wired, class notes (example: www.cc.ysu.edu/~jcdick/), student papers, mailing list posts, Star of the North Concert Band, etc are not reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mav, thank you for your comments. I've been pondering about changing the title to better reflect the contents. Do you have a suggestion other than "Rove Formation geology", "Rove Formation area" or "Rove Formation region"? If not, which of the above do you think is the best title?


 * I'll work on expanding the lead and locality (may not be for a couple of days). I have printed off the WP:V and WP:RS to read. (I'm aware of using reliable sources, but wasn't aware of these pages. Thanks for pointing me to them.) After reading them, I'll work on the footnoting (again, probably not for a couple of days).


 * Again, thank you for your comments and additional help with my above questions. Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)