Talk:Caprock

I'm not sure of Wikipedia style guidelines but this seems rather inelegant. Not going to change things in case this does conform to the style guidelines though. Any more veteran Wikipedians care to voice an opinion? --2602:306:C531:7310:9CFA:CDC4:C7B1:BCE3 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyone home? --2602:306:C531:7310:9CFA:CDC4:C7B1:BCE3 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Still would like an opinion here. --2602:306:C531:7310:1177:3885:BB6F:3C9F (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know you guys like doing things by committee here. So I would like to know what the policy is. Thank you. --2602:306:C531:7310:1177:3885:BB6F:3C9F (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If more clarification about the problem may be requested, let us consider the first three sentences in the opening statement:

Caprock or cap rock is a harder or more resistant rock type overlying a weaker or less resistant rock type.[1] Common types of caprock are sandstone and mafic rock types. An analogy of caprock could be the outer crust on a cake that is a bit harder than the underlying layer.

Now let us consider the first three sentences in the Description sentences:

Caprock is a harder or more resistant rock type overlying a weaker or less resistant rock type.[1] Common types of caprock are sandstone and mafic rock types. An analogy of caprock could be the outer crust on a cake that is a bit harder than the underlying layer.

Hmm. Other than the standard Wikipedia proviso of offering alternative spellings in the initial introduction, the description does not deviate from the opening. In fact, it might even take away from the earlier part. Anyway, I hope that this report finds you well. --2602:306:C531:7310:1177:3885:BB6F:3C9F (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wonder when someone will notice this stream of messages. --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

We should attempt to reach consensus here. Isn't that the Wikipedian ideal? --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I'm not great at coming up with a new text. Hence reaching out for some help. --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would be an interesting exercise to see a talkpage that's longer than the article --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, if anyone could refer to a Wikipedian guideline on what to do in these circumstances, that would be great --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's figure this thing out together! Consensus please. --2602:306:C531:7310:C447:565:1DC3:B2F9 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's really sad to see a disused wiki page untouched nearly over two years for such a pivotal topic about geology. --2602:306:C531:7310:5DDA:9B6F:26E3:7E8F (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thousands of people read this page every month. Think about all the redundancy they see every time they look at this page. --2602:306:C531:7310:5DDA:9B6F:26E3:7E8F (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, this is even more back alley, with only about sixty views per month. But if you think about it, that's a lot for a page of this stature. What sort of person would even consider to talk about this page? --2602:306:C531:7310:5DDA:9B6F:26E3:7E8F (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now fixed. Pointillist (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another small detail: the beginning of this talk page contains an extra parenthesis. --2602:306:C531:7310:A580:AD51:BDD5:9D5F (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 21 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seeyalea (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sophia Sparks.

— Assignment last updated by MethanoJen (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The current state of the article is relevant but is broadly focused, with a distracting shift to escarpments that could be better implemented for better reading. The article relies on outdated references from 1966, 1976, and 2001, which should be updated for accuracy. There are some missing details on the geographical distribution, mineralogy, and economic relevance of petroleum that should be incorporated. The article also lacks citations in the bulk of the text (which might violate some of Wikipedia's citation policies) and would benefit from more figures and hyperlinks (e.g. "hydrocarbon" and "erosion/eroding"). Structurally, the article could be better organized with subsections, such as refocusing the "Petroleum" section to general forms of hydrocarbons related to caprock, with petroleum as a subsection. While the article avoids excessive jargon, additional citations and organization would improve its quality. Seeyalea (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply