Talk:Bedrock

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bedrock. 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/20121002225931/http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/newsletter/2004No.1.pdf to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/newsletter/2004No.1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on soil beginning "Soil scientists use..." seems misplaced. The information is good, but should be in the article on soil or regolith. It's not about bedrock.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.205.51 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soil section is not appropriate here 

message: Reviewing 'Bedrock' 
1. The lead section is easy to understand so that the average person could easily understand the topic. The importance of the topic is well described in the lead. However, I do not think that the lead reflects the most important information of the wiki page. There are a lot of important information that would need to be explained and have their own heading further in the wiki page (examples: superficial deposits, what happens when bedrock experiences subsurface weathering, different bedrock types, etc.)
2. As the wiki page is still quite short, it is hard to review the structure. But overall, with the information that is on there now, it is clear as headings are well identified and clear.
3. The coverage is not really balanced. In the 'In soil science' section, I would describe each soil horizons in details to explain it better. So, a subheading for each O, A, B, C and E as well as explain the letter R in details. As mentioned above, I would add more sections to explain the topic in greater details.
4. The content is neutral, no opinions are shared, just information from peer reviewed sources. The article does not draw any conclusion since no perspective can be guessed by reading it. No claims either which is great.
5. The sources are reliable. They are also peer reviewed so the information taken from these sources is accurate. It would be good to cite more since not all the information is cited.
Overall, it is good. I think details and more information needs to be added as well as citing all information that comes from the sources that are referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joellegavazziapril (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joëlle's Peer Review 

message: Just a note before my review :
All the information in this article  was previously existing and i have not included any information as of yet. 
I have read both of your reviews and do agree with what you have sad regarding the lack of structure and definition. My plan is  to write a concrete definition of bedrock one that will explain the type of surface in a concise and understandable manner. I will also remove the soil science subheading as i believe it is misplaced because bedrock is the hard rock layer underneath the unconsolidated material and this section is about soil. Thanks for your feedback on the article and i will take that into consideration when i start contributing to the article.
Laxanan (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to peer reviews  

message: Most of the time, when people add information that relates to bedrock in the video game Minecraft, it is un-constructive and should be removed. It just makes no sense to add information related to the Minecraft version onto this page, as THIS page focuses on the  geological Bedrock, or for young people, Bedrock in real life. BumAMOGUS (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT ADD INFORMATION RELATED TO BEDROCK IN [[Minecraft]]