Forum Game: Rate the Wikipedia Article Above You

[Red]

Rules:
1. If the article is long, just do a quick skim. Don't have to get all the details, just do a quick once over.
2. Each article is to be posted only once.
3. Only Wikipedia; No RationalWiki, no Uncyclopedia.
4. Give a quick 2 sentence review and an arbitrary rating.
5. Any subject/field is allowed, even NSFW articles. Just don't post any of the lewd stuff here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

[GoldenWatch1809]

One of the funniest pseudosciences I've heard of. It's hilarious and pathetic to see these nimrods attempt to reconcile obvious bullcrap.

What these people don't understand is how science works; Aside from just failing to apply scientific methodology, they don't understand that these things have been attempted to be proven before, and real scientists are always trying to find things that go against the status quo.

As much as I hate Pseudoscience, I still like the fact that such asinine things exist.

As for the quality of the article, it's well written, has good details and images, and addresses the subject well. 9/10

How about a field that uses some actual geology (and disproves this pseudoscience)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology