Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2664048ff9726ee

Jump to content

Talk:Dip slope

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 2601:285:101:7076:71F1:2B:80F5:7191 in topic The lead was fine

Landslides

[edit]

I'm not sure that landslides are common on dip slopes. The whole reason they form is because the rock is resistant to erosion and weathering. Shouldn't it be that they are common on the escarpment?

It depends upon the landform involved. In case of homoclinal ridges and cuestas, this is a false statement as the dips on them are generally, but not always, too low and caprock is to stable for landsliding to occur. In case of hogbacks and flatirons and hogbacks, the dip are steep enough for landsliding to occur. This statement needs to removed until it can be corrected. Paul H. (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Misinformation From Britannica Online Encyclopedia

[edit]

The Britannica Online Encyclopedia stated that “cuesta, ( Spanish: “slope”: ) also called Homoclinal Ridge,…” This is quite wrong. All of the glossaries and textbook on geomorphology that I have consulted clearly state that cuesta and homoclinal ridges are not the same landform. Although these landforms may grade into each other, geologists and geomorphologists recognize them as different types of landforms. This misinformation needs to be corrected in this article and the citation to and the other misinformation from this this "Britannica Online Encyclopedia" entry needs to be removed from this article. Paul H. (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The lead was fine

[edit]

The lead to this article was okay, but it was then moved down and a very poor paragraph without clear meaning was added, so I think it needs changed back.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:101:7076:71F1:2B:80F5:7191 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply