Talk:Post-glacial rebound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post-glacial rebound was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Delisted version: September 30, 2007}

Can someone explain how post-glacial rebound can cause low gravity regions? As per this article:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html

Isn't the stuff about North and South England only one of a number of causes? The Thames barrier and sinking of London is often attributed to over-pumping from deep wells and the idea that the South of England has to fall because the North rises looks a bit thin? Also the Ice Age reached the Exe-Tees line half way down England and Great Britain is not an island it is Islands. I have taken the "Good Article" tag off until resolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs)

The following is a quote from a report by University College London's Benfield Hazard Research Centre [1]:

As if all this was not enough, as will be shown later in this report, in the south east of England the land is sinking due to tectonic tilt caused by post glacial rebound in the north of Britain, which will accelerate relative sea level rise.

Worldtraveller 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article delisting

I have decided to delist this article on the grounds that the GA criteria are not met and the article was not reviewed before status was upgraded.

1. Well written?: No problems here.

2. Factually accurate?: There are only three references at the bottom, and although inline links point to sources, inline references are not used. Specific sections are not referenced, and there are no references at all until the paragraph about Finland in the effects section and the paragraph about Great Britiain. These are the only two paragraphs with references. This needs to be rectified to pass GA.

3. Broad in coverage?: Attempts made to cover a range of topics, however I would say needs more on economic effects and so forth, and the legal issues section needs expansion.

4. Neutral point of view?: No problems here, covers a range of situations around the world.

5. Article stability? No problems here.

6. Images?: Could use some better images, but not bad enough to not meet the criteria.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:

a Pass/Fail: