Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Death Valley area

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

Geology of the Death Valley area[edit]

Self nom. Death Valley National Park is already featured. Boy does this place have a complex geologic history (even more complex than the geology of the Grand Canyon area). Is this article FA quality yet? If not, what else needs to be done? --mav 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • To me, this is FA material. Support. Phils 16:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work as always. - Taxman 17:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Minor, but the references section should not have [1] links as they are really not informative by themselves or durable; instead, they should be formatted as any article or Internet reference. 119 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What? Having such links are standard on Wikipedia and each points to a different page for the same reference. It would be stupid to list each as if it were a separate reference so I'm not going to do that. The reason I have such links is 1) to make it easier for readers to navigate the source (the source's navigation is easy to get lost in) and 2) to provide direct link backs to public domain content I use in a compact way (I treat PD text as if it were FDLd - as a courtesy). --mav 22:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • [1] offers no information on what the source actually is, so it is not useful. If 1-9 are all from part of the USGS webpage "Death Valley Geologic Time", then its author, title, and publication date or access date should be cited so [1] is not totally useless when the reader or that page is offline. Regarding your reverting my formatting of the book references to Chicago style, you say it's for consistency with the inline citations, but your inline citations are not consistent with any standard format and the References formatting is idiosyncratic and very difficult. Compare below, I think others will agree that the one formatted according to a widely-recognized style is more usable. 119 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Geology Underfoot in Death Valley and Owens Valley, Sharp, Glazner (Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula; 1997; pages 1-2, 41-54) ISBN 0-87842-362-1
        Robert P. Sharp and Allen F. Glazner, Geology Underfoot in Death Valley and Owens Valley (Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1997, ISBN 0-87842-362-1), 1-2 and 41-54.
        • Author info was not given for the USGS cites. The [1] directly follows the name of the series and a link to its first page. What's more, the printable version of this page expands the url. So saying that [1] is useless offline is absurd. I also used books, not works of particular authors, as references. That is the way I cite things because that is the way I use them (I simply don't think of who the author is while reading reference works). Logically with the Chicago and similar styles one would have an inline cite that says (Sharp, 122) which gives the impression that that person is the one who developed the idea. That is not appropriate for citing a secondary source. I've added viewed info as well as last modified info for the online cites (oversight on my part). --mav 04:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Besides, we don't yet have a standard form for citations, so objections that the form is not the way you like it are unfair because they are not based on the criteria articles are judged on. The criteria call for references and inline citations, which this article has. When a consensus better system comes out, these and other articles can be converted to it, but I don't think it is a valid objection until then. - Taxman 18:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not object on the book references format, though I would like them to be a recognized format. I object on having references that are just links because whatever style is used, the bare URL or even a title and URL is not a useful reference. It's not that I want those in a specific style, but that I want information necessary to track this reference down to be included. Add (corporate) author, title, publisher/website, publication date, access date, etc. and those references would be verifiable. 119 18:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, ok, asking for full reference information on external links (as much as available) seems appropriate. That did not seem like what you were asking for. - Taxman 21:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • Title, publsher/website, publication date, and access date all included with the external links. There was no author information, so it is not possible for me to have included that. --mav 22:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to Raul: Please keep this as a FAC for a while longer. I want more feedback. --mav 02:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks very good, you've made the complex geology very accessible. My comments include
  1. Is Snowball Earth accepted enough to include a link? I thought it was still in the "wacky hypothesis" category.
  2. a few too many parenthetical comments, probably should be reworded.
  3. Capitalize MYA ? Mya? Not sure.
  4. typo: shaly -> shale
  5. link to Slab gap hypothesis
Must run, more comments later. Looks really good. -- hike395 14:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. There certainly was a severe glaciation in the Varangian and a great deal of evidence supports the claim that large glaciers (perhaps continental glaciers) extended into the tropics. In fact the tillites that date to this period in the Death Valley area were deposited when that part of North America was in the tropics. Therefore some version of Snowball Earth is fairly likely to have occurred at that time (at least, that is how my historical geology professor taught it ; but then, we've already found out that some of my professors are biased when it comes to pet theories). I think my use of the words 'possible' and 'hypothesis' give adequate qualification. If you think more qualification is needed, then please add it. :)
  2. Fixed. Great comment - the text is less choppy now.
  3. I've seen mya most often. I don't think it really matters either way.
  4. 'Shaly' is the correct word. I needed an adjective for 'shale'.
  5. Linked in the body. Not sure if it would be a good idea to link it in the lead. Please do so if you think it would be a good idea.
Thanks for your comments! --mav
  1. is limy a word?
  2. One of these days, one of us should write Sierra Nevada Batholith (not really a edit comment)
  3. Template Inote usage seems to be broken?
I learned a lot reading this article -- definitely should be a FA. -- hike395 16:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Yep. Webster told me so. :)
  2. Geology of the Sierra Nevada is needed before that... (so much to write, so little time!)
  3. Seems to work again. Odd.
Thanks! --mav 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)