# Talk:Earth structure

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earth structure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this one within the week. At first glance, it seems like you've done a nice job on it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes
Fired bricks and concrete are derived from earth, but structures built from these materials are usually not considered earth structures. - please add a reference
Done Aymatth2 (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Citations
Lindauer & Blitz 1997, pp. 169ff. - Lindauer & Blitz 1997, p. 169ff.
Snell 2004, p. 27-28. - Snell 2004, pp. 27-28.
Elleh 1998, p. 47. Harv error: link from #CITEREFElleh1998 doesn't point to any citation. (f you install this, HarvErrors are easy to notice.)
Porterfield 2004, p. 39. Harv error: link from #CITEREFPorterfield2004 doesn't point to any citation.
Sources
Elleh, Nnamdi (1997). African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-021506-1. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFElleh1997.
Porterfield, Jason (2004-05). The Homestead Act of 1862: A Primary Source History of the Settlement of the American Heartland in the Late 19th Century. The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4042-0178-1. Retrieved 2014-04-27. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPorterfield.
@Dr. Blofeld: & @Aymatth2: Not much to do on this one but I'll put it on hold for the 7 days in case you're busy with other things. Please ping me when you'd like me to take another look. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: All addressed now I think except the first one which I'll ask Aymatth2 to add. Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Earth structure. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512092251/http://www.icm.gov.mo/exhibition/tc/fjintroE.asp to http://www.icm.gov.mo/exhibition/tc/fjintroE.asp
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) 08:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I just added a section called Structural Issues. I hope it's not too detailed...
I have mostly referred to others' work, but I included one link to my own document because I do not know anyone else who has produced research like this. I am unpaid but have a non-profit called Build Simple and produced a needed field soil strength test- see reference 100. I did not add a link to the page although it's online. If someone else thinks that is merited, it's at https://buildsimple.org/soil-tests.php
Thanks!
EBResearcher (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against this at all, but next time, I recommend proposing your changes on the talk page instead of adding them yourself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. This is the writing of for Tulou 
--Visionhelp (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

https://whc.unesco.org/en/earthen-architecture/
--Visionhelp (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am very wondering about this title, this choice of word(ing), to this topic. But I will never be familiar with a none native language as english is for me. From this I cannot estimate the possibly more than one meaning of the word ´earth´, and how to use. 
For example: for soil and earth in german is only word with the exact same meaning, but not really, because of the earth is one and the soil is an other meaning. But having only this one word for both, then it is so just. 
From this - my base - I may be wondering about not using the word soil instead of earth. But perhaps I may be enlightened, sophisticated, illuminated, solved, clarified; sorry this (https://www.dict.cc/?s=aufgekl%C3%A4rt) 
Thank You very much. --Visionhelp (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Saw this today:

Gerretsen, Isabelle (2022-07-05). "The sustainable cities made from mud". BBC Future. Retrieved 2022-07-12.

Peaceray (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators:    
Unfortunately, incorrect terminology is often used in connection with earth building and new terms are constantly being invented. For example, "mud", "earth" and "loam" are regularly and indiscriminately used to describe a building material. This can and regularly does lead to misunderstandings. Since people live in it, this can also be very dangerous. It is probably not Wikipedia's job to define and standardize terms, but this problem should be pointed out in the article, until its cleaned up. 

AChatNoir (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)