Talk:Post-glacial rebound

message: 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: 
I am allowing until 30th September for these problems to be fixed before delisting. Max Naylor 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As nothing has been done to correct these problems, I am delisting the article. Max Naylor 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article delisting

message: I tried one, but I don't see any reference showing up.  Can someone make this work properly? Dan Watts (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline referencing

message: neither specifically due to climate, nor that it has risen.
this is not to dispute this, but i think we need evidence here (which i'm sure is available).
124.171.135.186 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that's been fairly flat for the last 8k years suddenly jumps up 20 cm in the past 100 and that's no change?  Extending 20 cm/century back over the last 8k years would have pushed the level up by 16 meters.  Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no citation for claims sea levels have risen due to climate change 

message: I don't believe in that. The increase of about 2.3 ms/cy can be explaind perfectly by conversation of angular momentum and the observation, that the distance of the moon increases about 4 cm each year.
95.222.228.77 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that again. Sorry, but guess I was mistaken. The sea water contributes considerable to the Earth's moment of inertia. That means the moment of interia is really measurable reduced by ice mass close to the poles (near the axis of rotation). --95.222.228.77 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole thing is nonsense 

message: The section "Earth's rotation" is quite doubtful from the very beginning, starting from attribution of Earth rotation irregularities to ancient Chinese and Babylonian astronomers. But the theory about rotation axis is the worst. There were several glaciation in Pleistocene, so we should consider effect of which? Or, maybe, of all combined? The article true polar wander does not provide any figures for Earth (such as 1 degree per Myr), any plots or graphs, even unreferenced ones. It even does not give an intelligible definition of the phenomena – if the lithosphere is subject to plate tectonics and rotation axis is subject to precession, then what reference should we use for this wander? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: Those who say nonsense to GIA effect on LOD only reveal their total ignorance.  There are plenty of refences out there--pull your heads out and look them up! Take a refresher course in freshman physics! I would only point out that no million year polar wander can be safely extrapolated from current observation.  --AGF  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIA and LOD 

message: In the section on "Vertical crustal motion" this statement
"Lake Superior was formerly part of a much larger lake together with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, but post-glacial rebound raised land dividing the three lakes about 2100 years ago."
is not borne out by anything in the source given (there is a map of relative land rise curves, but I'm not sure it would give that result, anyway that would be obvious original research/self-made calculation), and actually it was added to the article long before the supposed source (which is thoroughly scientific though, and knowledgeable on other aspects of great Lakes shoreline change). And a check with the series of maps at Great Lakes, one of them showing the state of things around 2000 BC, at least does not bear out that there was a very long stretch in time when the three Western lakes were united. Can somebody check this and look for other sources? Strausszek (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Lakes separation 

message: THe image whose caption starts "A model of present-day surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound..." depicts the EQUIVALENT WATER THICKNESS to the GIA rates. That quantity is used in GRACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment) data analysis to display the time changes in MASS that causes changes in observed gravity. The more appropriate image to show here is ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/pgr/browse/PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png , which shows the actual vertical motion of the lithosphere (up or down, despite the filename) due to GIA. (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image "A model of present-day surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound ..." should be replaced 

message: The "Legal implications" only covers Finland. Does anyone know what the legal implications are for any other countries? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal implications