Talk:Sonoma orogeny

Reason for rejected edit

Why was my comprehensive article deleted in favor of the discredited start article?Ahlitanah (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edit removed all the formatting that was there already and used none of the standard Wikipedia style. If I had the time (which I currently don't) I would go through all your text reformatting it and adding links to at least abstracts of your cited references, if not full text versions. However, that would take me quite a while, so I'm not offering right now. I suggest that you work on this in your own sandbox (you do have one - there's a link between talk and preferences at the top of the page) and sort out the formatting. Look at one of the more complete articles and copy the style. Otherwise, if you're prepared to wait a couple of weeks until I'm less busy, I'll be happy to help you out. Mikenorton (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was based on a number factors. (1) The fact that there was no attempt to present the new version with any wiki formatting (ie subheads, wikilinks, inline citations). This is what drew my attention to it from Special:DeadendPages. (2) As User:Tobias1984 points out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Sonoma_orogeny it is written more in the style of an essay than an encyclopaedic article. It seems to be more of a history of the science than a description of what it is and how it came about. As a non-expert in this field I would add the comment that in its current form it is of little value to the average reader. (3) The manner in which such a large change was made with no consultation or explanation on the talk page was suspicious, though I suppose I am guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

I agree with Mikenorton that the sandbox might be the best place to work on this. I can help from a layman's perspective if you want. A good lead would be a starting point: what it is; where it is; why it is significant; the fact there are are (or have been) conflicting theories about it; if possible a brief description of the current concensus about it. I hope this helps. --Derek Andrews (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]