Talk:Pressure solution

Refspam?

I've restored the deleted material. I see that it was originally put there by an editor later identified as a sockpuppet, however, it doesn't seem out of place. Certainly it doesn't fit with the description of refspam - "typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." The reference is only in the two articles, to which it appears to be entirely relevant. The papers are in reputable journals and are reasonably well-cited. Am I missing something here? Mikenorton (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. The second author of the reference in question seems to have been using a rather large number of sockpuppets (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun) over the past few years to insert references to his computer science papers in various articles in manners where they gave undue weight to them.

This paper is a bit different in that it concerns (mathematical?) geology and not computer science. The article also seems to have attracted a non-trivial number of citations, and the first author looks like an otherwise respected geologist. But there are still some things that concern me. For example, I'm unable to find anything mentioning these "Fowler–Yang equations", other than the Wikipedia article or copies of them. So this seems like another instance where the second author is trying to attract some undue attention to his work by inserting references to them in Wikipedia articles.

Judging by you user page you seem to be quite a bit more knowledgeable in this area than me, so I'll leave to decision on what to do with this up to you. —Ruud 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find the time to look into it a bit closer. I suspect that the equations article is not notable, so I'm happy to see it be deleted, although it may deserve a brief mention in the further development of the theoretical treatment of pressure solution. I'm no mathematical geologist, so it will likely take a while. The theoretical models section should be expanded to cover more recent developments. Bother me if I don't get around to it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]