Talk:Marcellus Formation

Marcellus Formation has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 22, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
July 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 9, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that natural gas in the Marcellus Formation* could increase United States energy reserves by one trillion U.S. dollars?*
Current status: Good article

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Marcellus Formation is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Ohio / West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Appalachia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I am a reasonably intelligent person. I rarely mention this, but to document that I am not academically challenged, I'll mention that I graduated with honors from an Ivy League University. However I have no background in geology. This is not just "fairly technical." It is unreadable to those without technical background. I would like to get a good layman's understanding of the difference between Marcellus Shale energy and other gas production. I do not get a clue from reading his. Please tell it so use earth people can get it. Frog one (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This is fairly nearly FA, so I'm going to dispense with the usual GA review.

The language is often a bit technical. I can understand it fine, but if you want to go farther - and this isn't that far off from FA Firstly, the section on fossils is not particularly good. As a biologist, I'd like to see more. Some photographs of outcrops of the formation would be useful, but not required.

In short, simplify the language a little bit, and use palaeontological sources, not geological to discuss the palaeontology. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fossil section has been expanded from palaeontological sources, and additional sources have been tapped to expand the rest of the article as well. Also rather than simplifying the language, the technical terms are now better explained and given more context. Photo also included now, along with a table to support the description of members. Dhaluza (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pictures?

I live near Marcellus, NY, and so found this article very interesting. I am not a scientist of any sort, but I found it understandable. I'd be happy to take more pics if you knew of a particular location in Marcellus. However, while I know of many locations nearby where there are shale outcroppings (including on my family beach on Skaneateles Lake), and I pass Slate Hill Road in Marcellus often, I couldn't begin to look at a shale bank and tell if it were Marcellus shale or some other kind. The shale on our beach seems to be a lighter color...I'd characterize it as gray, not black. Plus, it has many fossils, while the article says there are few in the Marcellus shale. I do work with someone who sold rights to a natural gas exploration company for some test wells on his property....he could have an outcropping. Anyway, I wanted to see how interested you are in more pics before spending much time on this. What do you think? Lvklock (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: "At Marcellus numerous sink holes exist in the limestone which forms the base of the shales and far below the level of that rock many large springs of water make their appearance in Nine mile creek near by these show subterranean passages or excavations into which portions or blocks of upper masses have been let down to a lower level as we there find A little west of Nettleton's in the road and in the field on the north side are large fragments of the black limestone containing goniatites they were ploughed up and put aside for wall stone Between Onondaga hollow and Marcellus the turnpike passes over the lower shales where it rises to its greatest elevation The shales form the top of the hill east of Marcellus extending along the pond and rising with the upper shales to a considerable height on the south and west side of the village At the quarry of Seneca limestone there is five feet of shale upon that rock then a layer of very impure limestone breaking with a curved shaly fracture containing the Marcellus lingula and a small orthis which is also found in the road but not yet named Along the pond to the southeast the upper thick layer is seen with fragments of rather imperfect specimens of goniatites and orthocerae such as were before noticed." [1]

Also from the same source, "At the village of Marcellus [the Onondoga Limestone] forms the bottom of the creek at the mill It appears to be of a darker grey finer grained and less encrinal than usual but little however is exposed [2]. The shales above the creek bottom will be from the Marcellus, with the darkest shales near the bottom.

Good luck! Dhaluza (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for FA drive

Hi, I see that you're aiming to promote this article to FA. Content wise, the article is pretty good, although the palaeontology side could be developed somewhat - I'm not left with any impression of the significance of the fossils contained; it reads as a list. What do they tell us about water depth, temperature and salinity, for example? The same holds true elsewhere to some degree; in places the article reads as a list of every fact that could be found about the Marcellus, without any discussion of why the fact is notable or relevant. However, the largest scope for improvement is in the style of the article. The text would benefit from a thorough copyedit: there is a lot of redundnacy, and a fair bit of bad grammar. As an example: as it's currently written, "A diverse eel-like conodont fauna" means "a conodont fauna which resembles a diverse eel" - not, I suspect, the author's intention. A peer review ought to highlight some of these issues, but a careful read through should also pick some out. Finally, I second the point made above; some references are very weak or on unrelated topics. A few moments with Google Scholar should enable you to find primary references (which may not even mention the Marcellus if they relate to environmental conditions in the early Devonian), rather than papers which make points in passing.

On the whole though, you seem to have done a great job of synthesising all available information. Good luck with your efforts to gain recognition for this! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've given plenty of good tips on where to work towards improvement. It always helps to have a look from an independent eye, especially a trained one. Your observation about the fossil section is true, and I could certainly use some help there. In regard to your edit comment question about bedrock, I think it is possible to have a rock-unit that exists only in the sub-surface (i.e. is only seen in borings) that does not reach the bedrock layer. Also bedrock is not necessarily exposed, and that section deals with covered bedrock as well (e.g. radon). So "exposures" could be a sub-section of "bedrock". Dhaluza (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article for Good Article Review. On science-related articles, metric measures should be listed first (with U.S. measurements next). I'll go in to correct them, section by section. I had a couple of minor punctuation issues, I'll correct them as I come across them. Overall it seems to be a good article (from a reviewer with about six weeks' experience on Wikipedia). Bettymnz4 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with what I set out to do. I don't feel qualified, yet, to officially judge whether or not your article passes. I believe it is of good article quality. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellus Formation, natural gas

The topic may soon receive a larger audience. Here's one indication:

Lowenstein, Roger (2008-10-17). "What's Really Wrong With the Price of Oil". New York Times Magazine. New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-17. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Yellowdesk (talk) 21:45, October 17, 2008

Tioga Ash Beds

I suggest splitting out the section on the Tioga Ash Beds (Tioga Bentonite) as a separate article. The ash beds extend laterally for much further than the extent of the Marcellus, and it would be useful to link to the article from discussions of other formations (like Columbus Limestone) or use of marker beds in general in stratigraphy. Jim Stuby (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shale gas resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/towns-fighting-to-stand-ground-against-gas-drillers.html "As gas drilling spreads, towns stand ground over control" by Sabrina Tavernise NYT page A16, 15.December.2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split off Marcellus gas?

The Marcellus natural gas trend, as the, or one of the, largest and most controversial natural gas sources in the US, deserves its own article. It has great political, environmental, and economic importance, but is now buried in the middle of this long article. I propose that the Marcellus natural gas development be split off, leaving the geology here. What does everyone think? Plazak (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one objected, so I moved it. Plazak (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stratigraphy black box?

In the Stratigraphy section of the article and in the Generalized stratigraphy block, a mysterious black box obscures two apparent shale formations in the Northwestern New York System. This black box straddles the Northwestern New York System and the Western Pennsylvanian System (at the Mahantango Formation). Could this be intentional for stratigraphy purposes or just something on a copying machine perhaps? Bammon (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to work out what's going on with this image, but I'm mystified. The figure was created from Table 2 of the USGS report 2006_1237. I've done as below and uploaded a new version and replaced the one with issues. Mikenorton (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying cross section character scramble?

In the "Underlying" section, on the Geologic cross section of upper to middle Devonian strata, there are scrambled zeros apparently on the far left side. Additionally, the text for the color key appears leftmost on the far left in a scrambled format. Perhaps screen or carriage return formatting not enforced? Bammon (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original figure in the USGS report [3] has no issues like this. It appears to have been redrawn, with the directions reversed, no reason not to upload this PD figure as is. Mikenorton (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the original figure and replaced it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Marcellus Formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marcellus Formation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcellus Formation. 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/20081231180506/http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/BurgerReport.pdf to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/BurgerReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marcellus Formation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marcellus Formation. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://live.psu.edu/story/28116
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708103420/http://www.buffalocrushedstone.com/uploads/uploads5400/BCSDEISAsAccepted.pdf to http://www.buffalocrushedstone.com/uploads/uploads5400/BCSDEISAsAccepted.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102093844/http://anklebytes.com/ to http://www.anklebytes.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]