Talk:Geology of the Death Valley area

Geology of the Death Valley area is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 3, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 24, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

California: Southern California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Geology of the Death Valley area 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.

Shaly?

The article characterizes the Johnnie Formation as "varicolored shaly". Is "shaly" not an adjective awaiting a noun? Or should the word be "shale"? Myron 09:23:09, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Regarding timelines

Forgive my ignorance, but why does the article read "1700 million years ago" instead of "1.7 billion years ago"? Is that a common use in geology? --Ignis33 17:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very common. 'Billion' is also a bit ambiguous. --mav 00:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing improvement needed

This article could use some referencing improvements. There are places that would be helped by having additions of cites, to satisfy verifiability for the reader. If not objected to by significant contributors to the article, I would be willing to identify some of these deficient locations in the article with {{fact}} tags. However, it might be best to address in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to bring the referencing up to modern standards. I don't think a FAR is necessary. --mav (reviews needed) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you very much for the polite and professional response! Will most appreciate seeing the improvements to the page, and in such case you are most correct, an FAR would hopefully not be necessary. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links fixed, cite format modernized and more cites added. Still working. Once we both agree that the referencing is good, I want to create a PR to ask the community if anything else needs to be done to avoid a FAR. --mav (reviews needed) 01:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling for the next week and will return to work on this article then. I just received a new book on this subject that will be a great source for referencing and a modest expansion of some areas. --mav (reviews needed) 02:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiver refs added. --mav (reviews needed) 23:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just let me know when you are done with all the pass throughs. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Collier refs added. Once that is done, I'll revisit the USGS refs and do a final copyedit. I'll be traveling over the Thanksgiving holiday so won't be doing any work on this until the weekend after this one. --mav (reviews needed) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are pretty much done now. I just want to do a final copyedit before starting the PR. --mav (reviews needed) 04:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit done. Please take a look to see what else needs fixing. --mav (reviews needed) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you all be interested in more sources? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - that would be nice to have. -mav (reviews needed) 05:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The following readily available sources have material of likely interest, and bibilographies. Enjoy.

Tarman, Don; and Dave Jessey. Cal Poly Geology Club Death Valley Field Trip – 2004 http://geology.csupomona.edu/docs/DVT2004.pdf

Knott, J.R.; A.M. Sarna-Wojcicki, M.N. Machette, R.E. Klinger. Upper Neogene stratigraphy and tectonics of Death Valley — a revie Earth Science Reviews 73:245-270 2005 http://geology.fullerton.edu/jknott/images/ESR%20Paper.pdf

Machette, Michael N.; Margo L. Johnson, and Janet L. Slate. Quaternary and Late Pliocene Geology of the Death Valley Region: Recent Observations on Tectonics, Stratigraphy, and Lake Cycles (Guidebook for the 2001 Pacific Cell—Friends of the Pleistocene Fieldtrip) USGS Open-File Report 01-51 Various papers collected for field trip. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0051/ofr-01-0051.pdf

Troxel, W. Bennie; Lauren A. Wright. Tertiary extensional features, Death Valley region, eastern California. Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide-Cordilleran Section, 1987 http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/deva/troxel.pdf

- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. --mav (reviews needed) 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New image?

The first image seems rather lame. I have another image which is an oblique shaded-relief of Death Valley which might be better. If anyone is interested I'll upload to WikiCommons. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less lame is always good. :) --mav (reviews needed) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps this may be of some interest. I think it will work even at reduced scale. I'll see about uploading some references in a day or three. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of the Death Valley area. 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/20110808230147/http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/USGSNPS/deva/devastrat.html to http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/deva/devastrat.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of the Death Valley area. 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/20041028115611/http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/deva/OFR99-153b.pdf to http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/deva/OFR99-153b.pdf

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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) 03:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the non-working archive url with the url to the current page for downloading the document. Mikenorton (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria

Looks like it has significant unsourced content. Needs some work to get back to FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 03:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some significant updating, which I will be aiming to do over the next week or so. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

I agree with J Johnson that the current image at the head of the article is underwhelming, although I appreciate that it does cover the whole area. Sticking with NASA satellite images, I came across this image, which keeps the coverage, but has significantly more impact. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]