# Talk:Strandflat

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strandflat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


### Comments
This interesting article is very nearly ready for GA and I'll have just a few small comments and suggestions to make.

The English needs minor copy-editing, I may just go ahead and fix it rather than trying to explain.
The article contains one very large section or chapter, "Norwegian strandflat", with 2 levels of subsection. Since this is the sole chapter, and its title is basically that of the article, we might as well eliminate it and have two top-level chapters, 1. Characteristics, 2. Geological Origin.
The structure of the article reflects what is available on literature. The concept of strandflat is somewhat strange in my opinion; its both a general concept and a Norwegian relief unit. Most literature dealing with strandflats refer to Norway but the existence of strandflats elsewhere is mentioned in a few works. I added the heading "Norwegian strandflat" so that it is made clear from the beginning what is described later. I do not want readers to think all strandflats are exactly the same as the Norwegian. I would prefer to keep it.
However, the article mentions that strandflats are found in other countries. Perhaps it would be wise to have at least a short section on these (are their origins the same?), with at least one photograph there.
A sections on other strandflats may be of interest. Their origins are also debated but most often they are by-line references.
If you could add one then, that would be great. It would also help to fix the unbalanced section structure.
How did Evers argue about strandflats before Reusch defined the concept?
The article would definitely benefit from some clear diagrams contrasting the different explanations. I think these could be very simple (just outlines, even), but they would help enormously. Good Article Criterion #6 is "Illustrated, if possible, by images". It is clearly possible to create diagrams, and indeed some may already be available under a Creative Commons licence in some journals. I'm happy to assist with drawing if you have rough sketches or other materials to work from.
I agree some diagrams may help. I will upload a profile, but if you can create a "3D" oblique view of what a strandflat looks like that would add a lot of beauty to the article. —Lappspira (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
A profile will indeed help.
I think that statements like "formed on land in a piedmonttreppen system", "remnants of a weathered peneplain of Triassic age that was exhumed and made flat again in Pliocene and Pleistocene times" or "an etchplain with inselbergs" are too terse for the typical readership of Wikipedia (go for beginning undergraduate). The choice is to gloss these statements with some simpler explanations, or to provide diagrams with suitable captions to make each concept clear. I suspect "both" would be the best answer really.
Thank you for your review! I will answer issues here.
I am aware my English is formulaic and may need some polish. While I can attempt to fix this the best option would be to get some help on this.
I've done it.
Added this 3D picture to the article. Lappspira (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 
Just right! Very helpful, thank you.

This article, already of a good standard, has been clarified and improved by the changes made, and I'm happy to award it GA status now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I have made some substantial additions since the GA approval (I came across an interesting new source linking it up with offshore petroleum geology!). Would you mind to check? Lappspira (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This information does not appear to be supported by the 2013 article. Obviously not in the 1982 article. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:6156:F38D:548F:695B (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I searched the 1982 article and could not find support either! I must have confused some sources. However I moved the comma to make things clearer and added a new source (also by Klemsdal) that says:
Only a few works on the geomorphology of the coast of Norway  (>Fig.  8.1.1)  have  been  published,  and  most  of them  have  dealt  with  fiords  and  the  strandflat.
I still think the previous statement that strandflats alone are the most studied landforms in Norway is correct (from my own review), and that Tormod Klemsdal must have said this in at least one of his publications. Lappspira (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)