Talk:Cornubian batholith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Satellite map[edit]

This shows too much of northwest Europe: will look at it again I hope.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created another more detailed, labelled version and replaced the more general image - I had no idea they were so obvious and I now know of the existence of Stannon Pit. Mikenorton (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
More suitable to the purpose: the whiteness gradually degrades as the years go by and the tips get progressively taken over by vegetation. On land they stand out from miles away like small hills. There is a Commons image of Wenford Dries here
Former Clay Driers - - 1626728.jpg
but nothing of Stannon there.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite to make less technical[edit]

I will attempt to make this less technical - using my User Page: User:NHSavage/Cornubian_batholith. Feedback welcome (once I've made some progress!).--NHSavage (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made some progress with the article. I would welcome any feedback. I have tried to avoid deleting any information but I have explained technical terms when they are first used and tried to make the style more accessible.--NHSavage (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job of wrapping simple explanations around the complexity. I've made a few tweaks, and I think the "Mineral formation" section needs a bit more work to better emphasise the four stages of mineralization that are set out in the reference (Chesley et. al.) – the original text didn't do this either, IMO. In your note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Devon#Cornubian batholith, you said you had some further improvements to make: what are those?  —SMALLJIM  10:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence and the tweaks. I was planning on adding some additional information from a more basic book I have on Corwall's geology. I also have a copy of the 3rd edition of the SW regional geology but having reviewed that I am bit loathe to use it. The third edition is from the 1960s and it seems to be somewhat out of date in several aspects. For example it suggests that the Haig Fras might be part of the same batholith moved NE by a fault. On the mineralisation, I agree that it could be improved. I will try and do that.--NHSavage (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have started working on this over at mu user page. The other thing I hope to do is to improve the section on metamorphism. This is an important feature and not covered enough at the moment.--NHSavage (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking good. I've just dug out my copy of BRG SW England: it's the 1985 reprint of the 4th ed of 1975 "with additional references". It still states that Haig Fras may be a faulted part of the main batholith, so I've scribbled a note in the margin and put it back on the shelf. I do have a copy of Selwood's Geology of Cornwall (1998) somewhere, so I'll see if there's anything useful in that. However, I can't help re-quoting Sylvia Sayer in her The Outline of Dartmoor's Story (1951):

When this earth was still a fiery ball, there was a great upboiling of molten granite where Dartmoor now is; and this later cooled into high peaks and deep chasms, which eventually weathered down into the tors and valleys that we see to-day.

What else is needed? :) Seriously though, let me know if you want any more comments on the article.  —SMALLJIM  23:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Lovely quote, almost enough for me to prefer the "wrong but romantic" approach (but not quite, I am definitely a "right but repulsive" person). I'll let you know what else might be needed when I've finished on the mineralisation part. I am making slow but steady progress on the mineralisation section over on my user page at the moment.--NHSavage (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now reworked the mineralisation section. However, I am now unhappy with the Mineralogy and chemistry section. I will get on to this next, but probably not for a couple of days now. It still reads as too technical and the metamorphic part is far too short.--NHSavage (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few copyedits, but have avoided the mineralisation sections for now. I still need to check if there's anything useful in Selwood (see above). Maybe some bedtime reading :)  —SMALLJIM  23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. I am pretty much done on the mineralisation section. I have had a bash at the Mineralogy and chemistry section, but I have more to do on the contact metamorphism and metasomatism. I have run out of time tonight.--NHSavage (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well that's me done for now at least. I think that it probably now warrants the removal of the "too technical" tag but I am probably too close to it to be objective so I won't remove it myself.--NHSavage (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's much improved: I particularly like the four mineralisation stages which I'd never really got my head around before. Thanks for the work – I've removed the tag and bumped it to Class C (though someone else could reasonably decide it's B class).  —SMALLJIM  12:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and your copy editing.--NHSavage (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)