Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcellus Formation/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:02, 16 July 2008 [1].
I'm self nominating this article for featured article. I have been working on several geologic formation articles lately, and decided to try to fully expand one to become a template. This article has been substantially expanded since the GA review, and the comments from the PR have been addressed. It is now comprehensive, and very diversely sourced.
The article length is relatively long, but this is at least partially due to the variation in characteristics from state to state, and I don't think it would make sense to break it into separate articles on this basis. None of the sections other than the Fossil Fuel section are particularly long, so I do not think summary style will help much. I think it works better as a sort of self-contained geology lesson within the context of the main subject. I have tried to include interesting tidbits throughout the text to hold reader interest, while still comprehensively covering the details the references show as important. Another reason for the length is the need to provide context for the technical terms, which are important to both include and explain for this type of subject. So overall I think it works at this length.
One request for reviewers: If you see a problem that takes less effort to correct than to comment on, then please do the former. Thanks. -- Dhaluza (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - About your nomination statement - er, to become a template? I'm confused...
- I am trying to develop a comprehensive, fully fleshed-out article that can be used as a template for developing stubs and expanding them. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that first sentence leaves me feeling utterly confused, as I'm sure it would to any layman to geology. Could at least some of the jargon be explained?
- I've unloaded it by moving the abbreviations down to the Stratigraphy section, and moving some terms down in the lede. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Named for an outcrop found near the town of Marcellus, New York during a geological survey in 1839..." - it was named for the town, not the outcrop, obviously. Would you alter the prose to reflect this?
- Technically, I think it is named for the outcrop, using the name of the town. This is explained in detail in the Stratigraphy section. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau as a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." - this sentence feels... awkward. How about "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau, where a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves exists, conveniently located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." or something like that.
- I used your formulation, minus two words. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most fossils are contained in the limestones" - should that be "limestone"?
- I believe plural is correct, because there are several different named limestone layers. See Named Members. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the fossil record in these layers provide" - probably should be "provides".
- Yes, done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The black shales [...] the fissile shales ..." - same as the one two above - should it be "shale"? Note that I'm uncertain on both of these; geological grammar isn't my major.
- There are several different named shales, including black and gray shales. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy: "with vertical fractures or joints providing
someadditional storage as well as pathways for the gas to flow; some gas is also adsorbed on mineral grains." - More of the same: "stretching
some600 miles (970 km), compared..." if by "some" you mean to approximate the distance, then other, less ambiguous work better.- Yes, done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through more carefully later; I don't have much time right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the early feedback. I think I largely addressed these concerns, and appreciate your help. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1a for now, regretfully, after taking another look at the prose. I'll point some of the mistakes from the first few paragraphs of the first section.
- "The Marcellus Formation is a radioactive, carbonaceous black shale that may contain limestone beds and pyrite and siderite concentrations." - The problem here is pretty obvious.
- Please elaborate. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three "and"s - it's like saying "I like ice cream and cake and cookies" as opposed to "I like ice cream, cake, and cookies".
- No, it's not that simple. Either the "and" or the word "concentrations" needs to be repeated. I would argue that repeating the shorter word is the lesser of two evils. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three "and"s - it's like saying "I like ice cream and cake and cookies" as opposed to "I like ice cream, cake, and cookies".
- Please elaborate. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy: "Bedding in the Marcellus is moderately
welldeveloped..."- This is standard terminology. I hyphenated well-developed to avoid any confusion, and reworked the sentence. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is standard terminology. I hyphenated well-developed to avoid any confusion, and reworked the sentence. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The iron pyrite (FeS2) is especially abundant near the base, and the upper contacts of limestones" - unneeded comma, methinks.
- This might sound silly, but "organic rich deposits" just sounds... wrong, somehow. How about rewording to "rich organic deposits"?
- No, organic-rich is correct, but I hyphenated it again to avoid confusion. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation" -> A "the" before the sentence is sorely needed.
- I deliberately avoided it here, because the paragraph before and after both need to start with it, and this one does not. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone though and edited out over-use of "the" at the beginning of sentences, and especially paragraphs. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deliberately avoided it here, because the paragraph before and after both need to start with it, and this one does not. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "ranges from less than 1%, to over 11% in New York state" - another unneeded comma.
Much of the article suffers from this sort of substandard writing, unfortunately. A copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the comma usage is more an issue of style than substance. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, it needs to be fixed. Surely you don't dispute that leaving it in is grammatically incorrect? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing in favor of grammatical incorrectness, if that is what you mean. My point is that there are places where commas belong, and places where they do not belong. Outside of that, there are places where they are optional, and there, use, or non-use, is purely a matter of style. Obviously you prefer a particular, sparse, style, but this is not necessarily grammatically correct, nor is a more generous application incorrect. In technical writing, I believe a more liberal use is actually preferred — similar to climbing a steeper hill, you need to stop more often to rest. There are other practical considerations as well. For example, the unneeded commas you cite are used to create breaks for inserting reference superscripts. If they were removed, the citations would create a break in the sentence anyway, and it would be less visually appealing. There are a few places in the text where that was unavoidable because it would be grammatically incorrect to insert a comma there. But where one is optional, I believe it is preferable to use it in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that some of them aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect if you leave them out, but some, like the last comment, are. I would at least like the latter kind to be cleaned up throughout the article. Also, there's some other minor wording issues that occur occassionally - I'll be happy to support when both are resolved. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the difference between 1% and 11% is enough of a contrast to deserve a comma. I have expanded this section, including this sentence, so it may be more clear now. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when have commas been about contrast? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commas can indicate contrast, but this one doesn't. The sentence now is: Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation ranges from less than 1% in eastern New York, to over 11% in the central part of the state, and the shale may contain enough carbon to support combustion. This is ungrammatical and confusing; from and to are parallel and should be in the same construction. Weak Oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when have commas been about contrast? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the difference between 1% and 11% is enough of a contrast to deserve a comma. I have expanded this section, including this sentence, so it may be more clear now. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that some of them aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect if you leave them out, but some, like the last comment, are. I would at least like the latter kind to be cleaned up throughout the article. Also, there's some other minor wording issues that occur occassionally - I'll be happy to support when both are resolved. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing in favor of grammatical incorrectness, if that is what you mean. My point is that there are places where commas belong, and places where they do not belong. Outside of that, there are places where they are optional, and there, use, or non-use, is purely a matter of style. Obviously you prefer a particular, sparse, style, but this is not necessarily grammatically correct, nor is a more generous application incorrect. In technical writing, I believe a more liberal use is actually preferred — similar to climbing a steeper hill, you need to stop more often to rest. There are other practical considerations as well. For example, the unneeded commas you cite are used to create breaks for inserting reference superscripts. If they were removed, the citations would create a break in the sentence anyway, and it would be less visually appealing. There are a few places in the text where that was unavoidable because it would be grammatically incorrect to insert a comma there. But where one is optional, I believe it is preferable to use it in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, it needs to be fixed. Surely you don't dispute that leaving it in is grammatically incorrect? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/geo/lgdalleg.html deadlinks
Current ref 108 is borked somehowCurrent ref 126 (Doden, A. G. , Gold, D. P. et. al) is lacking a publisher
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The dead link is probably just a temporary problem. The main site is down too. Ref 108 link was dead, but commenting it out broke "cite web" -- used "cite news" instead. Publisher added. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" Comment
- "Martin, R.L.. "Taxonomic Revision and Paleoecology of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Fishes of the Onondaga, Columbus and Delaware Limestones of the eastern United States.". West Virginia University." needs an accessdate
- "External links" goes after "References" (WP:LAYOUT)
Gary King (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Access date added. Section moved. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.