Talk:Rove Formation

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Rove Formation was one of the Natural sciences 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
March 31, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
April 18, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
November 8, 2019	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Subtopic

I obviously don't know what a subtopic is. Thank you to whoever fixes this for me. (Another learning opportunity for me!!)

No worries, I have fixed it. I am going to list this as WP:GAN - otherwise you won't get a review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally ready to submit this article that I've been working on for the past couple of weeks. I have two questions: 1. I've tried several times to upload a document to Wikicommons and was unsuccessful. Do I have to create a SEPARATE account to add to Wikicommons? 2. I'd really like to upload the map on page 6 of http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5034/pdf/SIR20065034.pdf I've spent days reading about uploading and need help!!! Is it possible to upload a portion of a website? If so, could someone do this one for me (put it in the Puckwunge section). The descriptive text I'd like is: Bedrock geology of the extreme northeastern tip of Minnesota: prv=Rove Formation; prdb=Pigeon River diabase and kps=Puckwunge Formation. I have other portions of websites I'd like to upload, so I could follow whatever is done here. 3. Are university publications copy writed? Thank you for whatever help you give.Bettymnz4 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty. Thanks for the article! You do need an account on commons, but there is an option to make your current account global. See m:m:Help:Unified login. You can't upload a portion of a website, but you can take a screenshot of a portion of the map, save it, and then upload that. As a matter of fact, I'll just do it right now. University publications typically have copyright. You can leave a message on my talk page if you have any more specific questions. Awickert (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow your caption text - I was sleepy and forgot that you had specified it by the time I put the image up. Feel free to change, but I included the legend, so I'll add "tip" to my caption and it should be OK. Awickert (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert

Thank you SOOOO much for your help in downloading the image of the tip of NE MN. I plan to study it now, so I can duplicate the process. As I mentioned, I have at least one other image I want to download. (The others are probably university websites.)

Most of the time my computer access is limited to after hours; I'm often too exhausted to absorb new things.

I also appreciate you answering my other questions. I wasn't seeing any information on Wikipedia about the first one, about registering for Commons.

I see by your page that you are a geologist. I've also submitted "Saganagan Orogeny" for peer review, if you are interested.

I'm currently working on the Algoman Orogeny (on my page) and doing extensive rewriting for "Vaalbara"; I had included that information in the Saganagan article, but realized it had VERY little to do with that orogeny. I was surprised when I hyper-linked it to see that an article already existed. That article was pretty much word-for-word the same as mine, but I had footnotes. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I think this article should be moved back to Rove Formation. The current title is needlessly verbose and isn't really accurate, since the article encompasses the present state of the formation. Pburka (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "The" is not part of the formal name. If there is no objection in the next couple of weeks, I will move the article. Pinging Bettymnz4, principal author: Betty, I see you have not been active for some time; let us know if you have an objection to the move.

Kablammo (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - though I see there is already a page with that name serving as a redirect to this one, so it's not straightforward! Still it needs to be done. Geopersona (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to rename this article to "Rove Formation". GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the request to move. Kablammo (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Rove Formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ga Reassessment

The Rove Formation

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · 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)[reply]

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, @Bettymnz4: hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: 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)[reply]

@Aircorn: 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)[reply]

Sudbury Impact section unrelated to Rove Formation

The section about the Sudbury Impact needs to be removed. The impact predates the Rove formation by a considerably period of time and unrelated to it. In fact, the Rove Formation overlies "an intensely altered zone in the upper Gunflint and Biwabik formations." This altered zone in the upper Gunflint represents a subareally weathered surface and unconformity created by the forebulge of the initial Penokean Orogeny and period of concurrent nondeposition and weathering. Also, this section is based largely of material press erases and a message board instead of the original peer-reviewed papers. It is a mess that should be removed. Paul H. (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]