Wikipedia:Peer review/Saganagan Orogeny/archive1

Saganagan Orogeny
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'd like to know if this article is long enough to be considered for a peer review. Would it qualify for featured article status based on its length?

Even if it is too short to be considered for a peer review, I would appreciate feedback if it would qualify based on citation notes, etc.

I chose this topic because it was the first redlink in my Rove Formation article.

I have spent a lot of time Googling the topic, using any and all terms I could think of. Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted. I will check out whatever the library has.

I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you. Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: while this is a good start and what is here is interesting, the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion.
 * Another sign that this is too short is that is has no sections and lacks a lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
 * Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only four references in the article and they all have some issues. For now I think this would need additional references to print sources, not just lecture notes and a blog.
 * Blogs are usually not relaible sources, lecture notes are better but books or journal articles or perhaps a USGS type website would be better.
 * Article needs more references, for example The collision of at least two of these probably created the Saganagan Mountains. The theorized first supercontinent, Vaalbara, existed during the early Archaean Era. have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Any chance for a map or other illustrations?
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class Geology articles

What is there reads well and is interesting, but the length is about the size that I'd expect a fully-developed article's lede section would be. A search does indicate that there isn't much more to say though... Some background on where this occurred (near equator, mid-latitudes, or near poles), how high the mountains may have been, how long they lasted, where the eroded sediment went, etc are needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would agree that at this point, the article doesn't appear to be comprehensive enough for a FA. It doesn't help that only the first few sentences actually discusses the Saganagan Orogeny. The rest just summarizes the geological context. My suggestions would be to do a literature search. Right now most of your sources are just lecture notes. Not saying those are bad, but the article can only summarize someone else's summary of this topic. With a specialized topics such as this, you really need to look at the available papers on the geology of this orogeny. You said, "Because this geology is so near to the time of Earth's creation, most of the evidence has been subducted." This begs the question, what is the evidence for this orogeny? Compared to other Archaen Eon orogenies, is this among the oldest? --Volcanopele (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of literature, Google Scholar (play around with the precise search terms if needed) seems to have a few good articles on this orogeny. My suggestion would be to take a look at those, peruse them for relevant info on this event (particularly what evidence exists for it), and use that to expand the article.  You created sections for the article, but personally, those could all just be combined into one section, titled "Geologic context" or something similar.  --Volcanopele (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Those look promising!! I'm becoming too tired to really look at that tonight, but I did browse. Thank you. If I don't develop more information on the 'sections', I'll combine them per your recommendation. Again, I truly appreciate your help. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)