Talk:Siletzia/Archive 1

Archive 1

"North American jigsaw"

Williamborg: the material from the Sigloch article is interesting, and certainly sets the broad background. (Or one possible view of it.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate for Farallon plate? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that section, as a problem with the citations was causing one of the bots to go wild on some other stuff. That section really ought to go into Farallon plate, which needs development. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re recent edits

Attention anonymous editor(s?) of recent edits:

It appears that you know something about geology, as either a real geologist or an advanced student. Therefore I would love to discuss various aspects of this article with you. However, some of your recent edits are problematical: they were impulsive, and actually introduced some errors. Rather than trying to pick through them I am reverting all of them. Please do not take this as any kind of slap, it's just going to be easier to pull all of them out and then add such changes as are warranted without the errors. But first we should discuss them. What changes do you propose? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siletzia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk · contribs) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede

• The first sentence is rather a runon; can you split it into multiple sentences?

(Nice comments. My responses interleaved. ~JJ)

I was going to say "yes", but I find the connection of "massive formation" with "forms the bedrock" so tight that splitting seems erroneous. Still, perhaps that exceeds some readers' attention spans? Perhaps a semi-break by replacing "that" with "; it"?

That would probably be an improvement. Alternately, how about "Siletzia is the massive formation of early to middle Eocene epoch marine basalts and interbedded sediments in the forearc of the Cascadia subduction zone. The zone forms the basement rock..."? Feels kinda clunky to me, but I'm just playing around here. Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clunky. It's not the zone but the formation that forms the basement. I could bear with a semi-colon (give the reader a pause to catch his breath), but I find both parts so tightly linked in concept that I think they should not be split into separate sentences. -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Eocene" is contextless without a clickthrough; Eocene epoch, maybe?

But we do have clickthrough, no? In geological context "Eocene" is understood to be an epoch, but I suppose there is no harm done to add "epoch" for the benefit of the general reader.

We do, but the problem is that if someone has to click through to read, they've lost track of the article :). Generally-speaking (no wordplay intended) we write for the general reader, rather than the subject specialist. Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree as to the distraction of clicking-through. But having done it once presumably they then understand it. My philosophy is not to write down to the "general reader's" grade-level, but to write in a way that brings them up. "Some assembly required" seems reasonable. -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To some degree, yes, but that's better achieved with a short explanation than a link to a long, itself complex-and-requiring-extra-info, article. Ironholds (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the lead should be a summary, with any detailed explanation of terms deferred to the main text, or in a note. And in this case (for Eocene) I think the very first sentence of that article provides an adequate short explanation the term (what else might be said here?), and the length and complexity of the rest of that article immaterial for what may be needed here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fair: let's leave it, then. Ironholds (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What's "basement rock"?

Hmmm, I rather took that to be "obvious" (allusion to a joke). But point taken, and I'll consider how to explain that. Later: wikilinked basement rock. That should suffice.

Great!  Done Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "It rests directly on oceanic crust" - "the oceanic crust"

Done. And split reference to more directly support specific point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

≫ Removed the statement about the base. The citation provided was vague. I did find an exact source, but in process realized that most comments on this point are inferred from the model favored, and not supported by observation. I think it is a point many readers would like to know (I want to know!), but this going take further research and assessment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool; probably worth noting in and of itself, then :). Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, inquiring minds want to know. I have initiated queries to several geologists. I also took out the connected text in the first paragraph of "Extent" for the same reason. BTW, note the revision to the middle paragraph. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome - on or off-wiki geologists? I only ask because Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology appears to be alive and well and might be a good venue. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• "but is distinguished from slightly younger basalts that differ in chemical composition" - why is it distinguished? because of the composition difference? If so, "but is distinguished from slightly younger basalts due to a difference in chemical composition"

Possibly some confusion here. I'll have to think on this.

Cool :). Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A comment difficult to parse. "Why" seems irrelevant: geologists do (and have) noted the differences. No particular reason why they noted this, they just did. These became significant when they were correlated with the change of magmatism (noted later in the text). -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The Siletzia basalts...." - another runon sentence

Ironically, I had just run those two sentences together to clarify that both are supported by the same sources. I'll split them if you think that's best. But would a semi-colon suffice?

Possibly, but an extra footnote isn't going to be a problem :). As it happens, lede guidelines allow for one of two situations; no footnotes, except for direct quotations (which always have footnotes), or footnotes where you'd normally put footnotes. So there's no need to structure things around footnotes, since those aren't necessarily required - after all, all the content is (or should be) cited lower down. Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but there has already been an instance where someone thought the material wasn't supported. The problem with duplicated references (notes) is a certain bot that likes to combine what it thinks are redundant footnotes. Well, I may split it, and see what happens. -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "that became manifest" - "that happened"?

Its the difference between a process that was happening over some undetermined period of time, and when that process became apparent — i.e., "manifest".

That makes sense. Maybe something more layperson-friendly? "evident", say? Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined not. It's an ordinary word, not used in any special or technical way. But perhaps "became evident" instead. (But I like "manifest"!) -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Ma (millions of years ago)" - why not just "48 to 42 million years ago"?

Because "millions of years ago" quickly becomes tiresome, and Ma Ma is the standard term. Perhaps I should wikilink it? Done.

Wikilinking works well; thanks :).  Done Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not getting the general sense from the lead that it's a summary of the article as a whole.

Because it doesn't touch on the paleorotation and origin? (Or something else?) I'll consider how this might be done.

Pretty much. Would it be helpful for me to use this review page to sandbox possible ledes? Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding "Various theories have been proposed for Siletzia's origin, but it remains an open question", which I think adequately summarizes "Origins". The paleorotation is a key feature, but I don't see (yet?) that it needs to be summarized. -JJ 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems like it would help :). Ironholds (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmn; maybe merge this into an existing paragraph? The end of the 3rd one might make sense, since it's discussing the formation. Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence does look a bit odd, all by it self. But a) as summary it seems complete, and b) the question of how Siletzia came about is distinct from the subsequent events. I considered tacking this on to the end of the preceding paragraph, but it seemed marginally better on its own. Your thoughts? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is to stick it at the beginning/middle rather than the end. So, instead of having "here's how it went down [paragraph break/no paragraph break], we don't know why it happened yet", we'd have "we don't know why it happened, but [thing happened"? Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not certain what you mean. Perhaps you could illustrate with some sample text? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

More to come :). Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be "Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain" or "the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain"?

Ah, yes, I'll fix that. -JJ

• "Corresponds with" or "corresponds to"?

In the lead I think "with". But further below "to" seemed more appropriate. Googling quickly lead me to this discussion; I need to study that. -JJ

Studied it. Not entirely convinced, but went with "to". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Change of composition" or "change in composition"? (these above two comments may be a BrEng/AmEng issue, or an Oliver/everyone else issue, mind ;p)

Shades of the previous point? I don't know. -JJ

Done with the lede, I think. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Close enough? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Exposure and discovery

• Do the variously named exposures need to be bolded?

Good question. I don't know. I think they should be set off somehow, but am uncertain as to the best way. Similar issue further on regarding italicization. I am inclined to italicize on the first use of a name so that the words comprising the name are set off from the words comprising the rest of the sentence. (Some people use capitalization for this, but that can run into some other problems.) Bolding seems useful here. But overkill? Some of these could also be wikilinked, but not all. What do you think? ~ JJ 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, they all appear to be Proper Nouns, so capitalisation would work well, surely? Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely, as sometimes terms like "formation" and "fault" (etc.) are not capitalized, and the context might also have capitals. Even commas are imperfect separators. Perhaps capitals and italics? ~ JJ 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Works for me :). Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I switched the exposure names from bold to italic, but the result seems dubious. What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• The "see map" bit feels like it should be in a note rather than article text.

The point of mentioning the map is to remind the reader to consult it, as it illustrates what is being discussed. In a note the reminder would be out of sight. ~ JJ 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but frankly on my laptop the map is already out of sight by that point :/. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is why you need the reminder! Perhaps even a link to the map, yes? ~ JJ 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly? So, here's my issue summarised (warning; even summaries are, when written by me, long ;p).

One of the focuses (foci?) of Wikipedia is producing easily-readable encyclopedic content, more than merely encyclopedic content. So, let's take overly technical language as an example: we prefer to avoid articles that use it, even if every term is linked, because of the impact it has on the reader, which is twofold. The first and most obvious is that it dramatically increases the barrier to reading - even with links you end up having a lot more background material that is necessary to understand before you can grok the content you were trying to get a handle on. The second is that in going to learn about that background material (on other sites, and other wikipedia pages), they've actively departed from the original content. Instead of reading an article on "the any given postulant test as applied to discretionary trusts and mere fiduciary powers", I'm now reading up on different classes of trusts and certainty of objects (to take an example from my domain). So, we try to avoid overly technical content, and when we have to have it, have in-line explanations, to avoid these problems.

I would argue that the second one potentially applies to references like "see the map" - we're forcing the user to break from their perusing and reading in order to go to a different location, making them lose their place, to understand the topic (or, at least, encouraging them to do so). This is sub-optimal for the end user. So, I'd suggest one of two things: either eliminate references that cause this kind of breaking, or move the map down so that no such breaking is necessary and find an alternate lede image.

Does that make any sense? Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  The short answer is that there are multiple points where it is handy to refer to the map, but (short of repeated instances or a separate window) it can be in only one place. (And there is no question that the map is the lead image: aside from several unavailable variations there are no suitable alternatives.) Therefore we have links. (Or should.) As to "forcing" the user to interupt their perusing: no, it is entirely optional. It is intended as a convenience: if the user is somewhat uncertain as to the location of these formations, and wishes to check on them before proceeding, the map is available.

  The rest of your comment requires some contemplation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  Interesting comment, and worthy of a lengthy discussion. But the context here is the narrower question of whether inserting "see map" forces (or encourages) the user to interrupt their perusal, to their detriment.

  While "see" might seem imperative, in the usual encyclopedic context I think nearly all readers understand it as qualified by "for more information see ...". This brings it in line with my previous comment that it is optional. Whether this might still be an undesirable interruption in the flow, I would question "undesirable". The reader that does not need to check the map presumably is not interrupted (and the link is harmless), while the reader that does need to check should check. It's rather like my checking for my car keys as I go out the door: if I need them it is pointless to continue without them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You've convinced me; it'll be fine. As an aside, it's great to engage in a debate over this sort of thing and have it be both decorous and productive - thanks for that :). Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

For sure! I prefer "exploring", even "perfecting", not "winning". "Debate" unfortunately has come to carry too much of the latter sense. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on this; all tiny laptop and no desktop makes Jack a dull boy (and Oliver little better). I hope to have some time this evening :). Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to move the final sentence to the end of the first paragraph? And reword it, of course. So it would read something like "the formation has been variously named foo, bar and baz, and identified in a lot of different areas; to cover these terms (and areas), the term "Siletzia" was coined in 1979..." in terms of structure and what it communicates. Just an idea.

Introducing "Siletzia" in the middle switches from specifics to general back to specifics; I think that is not so good. My concept here is to describe the various parts, then fold them into the overall term. Alternately, I could start with something like: "Siletzia (coined by Irving in 1979) comprises ...." But I think it better to give the closeup view first, then pull back. This aligns with the viewpoint the following section starts with. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest linking 'map' via an anchor. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, and done. I had meant to do it originally, just overlooked it. Looking over the following comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Extent

• Link 'map'.

Done. -JJ

• "The map shows the exposures (black) and inferred near-surface extent (pink) of Siletzia, what can be detected in the upper crust by aeromagnetic, gravitational, or seismological studies." - that comma feels like the wrong thing to use. A dash, colon or semicolon, maybe? Pick whichever you feel is appropriate - I tend to overuse semicolons and so probably shouldn't have my advice taken as gospel ;p.

Logically the sentence has two objects: "exposures" and "inferred near-surface extent". The rest of the sentence explains what "near-surface extent" means. Any strong conjunction seems to disconnect the explanation from "extent", and make it apply to "exposures" and "extent" together. I considered putting that phrase in parentheses, after "pink", but it seems too important to be suppressed like that.

I inserted an explicit reference, so perhaps it could stand a semi-colon now. -JJ

• What "former trench"?

The trench into which the Farallon plate was subducted. I had thought this was obvious, but perhaps not to a non-geologist? I'll reconsider this.

• The final sentence in the first paragraph needs a citation.

The sources are vague on this, so I took it out. See my previous (in time) comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is "contacts" the technical term, or...? If not, I might use something different - "two exposed points where Siletzia meets the older (pre-Tertiary...)"

Yes. A "contact" is the, well, contact between two formations. -JJ

• Rosenburg, Oregon feels like it needs to be followed by a comma.

Yes. Done. -JJ

• Suggest linking "discussed below"

I don't see any point in linking; it's mainly assuring the reader that we will come back to it. If the subsequent discussion was far enough away a link might be useful, but it's just below, and in the same section. Jumping over a mere three paragraphs is not useful, and (shades of a prior point) would be more of a confusing distraction. -JJ

• "Everywhere else" - "Every other point of contact between the two formations are concealed..."

No. The contact — singular, including every point of contact — is everywhere else concealed. -JJ

• "Further south near Mount St. Helens is a similar situation, where the" - "A similar situation occurs further south, near Mount St. Helens. There, the.."

I could break the the sentence, though I think it is better with "similiar situation" proceeding into what the situation is. (With a full-stop the sentence looks like it is standing on its own, and a little lost.) However, I think "further south" should come first, because the description is primarily of the periphery (which at various locations has such-and-such a character), rather than of a certain situation (which is observed at multiple locations). -JJ

• "Separating these is the marine sedimentary formation known as the Southern Washington Cascades Conductor (SWCC); it is possible that it was deposited over a fragment of Siletzia.[23] Or not: the oldest parts of the SWCC likely predate Siletzia,[24] and the nature and location of the contact between these two formations is unknown." - suggest something like "Separating these is the marine sedimentary formation known as the Southern Washington Cascades Conductor (SWCC). [Academic] suggests that the SWCC was deposited over a fragment of Siletzia; [secondacademic] argues that the oldest parts of the SWCC likely predate Siletzia, and that the nature..."

What exactly is the problem?

What Miller et al. say precisely is: "One explanation for the observed increase in midcrustal velocities is that a fragment of Siletzian basement underlies the transect south of the Seattle basin ...." And, following three paragraphs describing their observations: "Thus this model lends additional support to the possibility that a fragment of the Siletz terrane may occur beneath the SWCC." "Argue" is a bit strong. Stanley et al. (who, by the way, are/were not "academics", but USGS scientists) do go so far as to suggest. Though these possibilities may seem to be contending alternatives (how does older rock get on top of younger rock?), they are not (the younger rock could get pushed under), as these scientists are fully aware. To suggest that they are arguing about it is therefore incorrect. -JJ

"Suggests" then? The "Or not:" stop-start style feels somewhat informal. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as being informal, or at least not too much so. I rather like the stark presentation of an apparent contrast; it kind of makes one sit up and take notice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest merging the next two (or three?) paragraphs.

For sure they are short, and not even my usual style. On the other hand, these are distinctly different locations and contexts, and I didn't want it to seem like all the contacts in Oregon were mushed together into a single paragraph. -JJ

• Is "thrust" a technical term? Again, I might use something less...peacock-sounding. 'pushed' say.

Yes. Though I don't know why it should be "peacock-sounding". (The lower-classes are pushy, while the upper-classes merely thrust? Hmmm.) -JJ

Heh; I meant as in "peacock words"; words that embelish with emotive attachments to the terms used. If it's a technical term, no embelishment is present; all is well. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "generally not definitely known" - given that the one exception is mentioned in the next clause I suspect 'generally' is extraneous.

The actual situation is more complex than stated. I am reviewing this. -JJ

• Cool! Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "Yakutat terrane" there.

Well, okay. The Yakutat Block stub is so close to being a copyvio that I wanted to ignore it. -JJ

Oh dear :(. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

All for now; more later (hopefully with less of a delay this time. Bah.) Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And I am reviewing a couple other points. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Composition

• "On the Olympic Peninsula the Blue Mountain unit at the base of the Crescent Formation includes sediments (including large boulders quartz diorite) of continental origin, showing that the continent was close by," - suggest a comma after "Peninsula", and maybe changing the comma after "by" into a semicolon.
• "from pre-Tertiary rock of" - "from the pre-Tertiary rock of"

I don't think it needs a comma, but I did put in a semicolon. I was inclined to leave out the "the", but Mrs. Jones messed me up so badly on grammar that I don't trust it. Okay, it's in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Age

• "latest" - as in "latest Paleocene" feels strange. Does "late" or "later" make sense?

"Latest" is common in geology, meaning at the very end. But if it seems strange to general readers it won't be any great loss of precision to just say "late". -JJ 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha, so "the end of the Paleocene"? That could work too if you want to be more specific. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be too specific because there is some variance in views on this. I think it would be best to stick with "late". -JJ 21:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• " a date of 49 Ma (millions of years ago) " - suggest removing (millions of years ago); it's inconsistent with the rest of the article. -JJ 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How is this "inconsistent with the rest of the article"? At the first use of Ma (in the lead) I explained the term. I do so again here in case the reader has forgotten. -JJ 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In the sense that it's not something noted each time. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated explanations would be redundant, even tiresome. I explain it (and wikilink) the first time, which is standard practice. I note it again the first time in this section because of the chance someone jumps directly here, skipping the introduction. -JJ 21:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• "suggestive of a spreading ridge (as previously suggested" - variants on suggested twice. Implies, maybe? or suggestive (as previously theorised by).

McWilliams did suggest; "noted" is weaker. I was thinking that the first instance could be replaced with "explained by". But the point is not that the observation can be "explained by" a spreading ridge, but that such an explanation is so cogent that it has been a strong constraint on the models. -JJ 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that suggested is pretty weak from that kind of support for the hypothesis, but that might be a cultural/idiomatic thing. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, geologists seem to think "suggest" is pretty strong. They (and we?) are not running on smackdown rules. -JJ 21:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that; it's a science thing (the whole "nothing is ever true, merely non-disproven-yet lends itself to being incredibly careful and specific about positive terminology when referring to theory). My worry is the general reader is probably not operating via the scientific method. Is there some middle-ground term you can think of that might work? Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Other workers" - other researchers? Other geologists?

Scientists seem shy about saying "other scientists". When (quite frequently) they do refer to "other workers" they don't mean the landscapers. But for the sake of general readers I suppose we could say "researchers". -JJ 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That'd work :). Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done! -JJ 21:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Size

• "reckoning a minimal thickness of only 3,000 feet, still estimated "nearly 10,000 cubic miles of rock";[43] he reckoned" - reckoned twice. I appreciate it's probably technical? Maybe replace the first one with "estimated".

"Estimated" is already in there four times. Perhaps "put". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That works; sorry, my bad! Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Paleorotation

• "Did Siletzia pivot about its northern end or southern end? This question has attracted considerable attention" - this, again, feels non-standard for Wikipedia; suggest "the question of whether Siletzia pivoted about its northern or southern end has attracted considerable attention."

Too passive! And too boring. That would bury the key element ("whether Siletzia pivoted ...") in the middle of the sentence, which is the least emphatic location. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "A key question for geologists has been whether Siletzia pivoted about its northern or southern end"? Short, pithy, puts more focus on the importance of the question. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That might work. Though I think the original is shorter, pithier(?). Do we need to identify this as "a key question"? Like, I think it is, but I don't recall any particular source saying so, so I would be hard put to support it. -JJ 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"important" maybe? Presumably if it's attracted that much professional attention it's non-trivial. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• More to come. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin

• "Lacking a definite answer[60] we can only review several of the most plausible theories." - gah, fourth-wall breaking! ;). We tend to try and avoid referring to ourselves in articles. How about just "Here are some of the most plausible theories"? (who's gauging plausibility, by the way?)

I've modified that; see if that works better. -JJ

Much improved :). Ironholds (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest the two fields of theory be put into a list rather than paragraphed text.

Good lord, no. Why? (By "two fields of theory" you are presumably referring to the two general types of models?) I thought lists were somewhat the bane of WP, being easier than actually describing things. Some of these models haven't been seen in the literature since Duncan mentioned them (thirty years ago), others are so new they're not fully dry, and many are not so much different models as different variations. Only a specialist could want a complete listing. Proper assignment of notability here is challenging (being multi-level), and see no way of doing it with a list. -JJ

Thinking about it, I guess it's the (1) and (2) that look weird to me. Maybe achieve the same with "First" and "Second"? Largely a personal preference. Ironholds (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "accreted" or "accretion"?

Fixed that (so it's parallel with the other term). -JJ

• " Farallon—Kula (or possibly Farallon—Resurrection) " - are there any applicable links here?

Only for Kula-Farallon Ridge, which is a rather useless stub. I could link each plate, but it seems messy to link only part of a name, and linking all of them seems overkill. -JJ

Fair point. Ironholds (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• " at that time" - "at the time Siletzia formed" maybe? Up to you as to whether you think the link is clear enough in the existing content or not.

No. It's the timing of the K-F ridge location that constrains the timing of Siletzia. I did swap in "epoch", perhaps that will avoid some of the ambiguity. -JJ 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep; much improved :).

Simpson & Cox 1977: Two models

• " Simpson & Cox (1977) " - the closing bracket isn't included in the link (petty, I know :P)

Yes. That's a problem with the {{Harvtxt}} template. See discussion at Template_talk:Harvcoltxt#Mismatched_brackets. -JJ

Gotcha; will chip in there. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• " Hammond 1979 doesn't follow the same naming convention; deliberate choice to avoid pairs of brackets?

Yes. -JJ

• Everything from "In the second" is uncited.

This is the second model of Simpson and Cox, as previously cited. -JJ 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS mentioned below. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Offshore model: A captured island chain?

• Same bracket issue as with Simpson & Cox with Duncan (1982)
• "no citation past "rifting or ridge subduction" in that paragraph

The text here is about the models Duncan considered, as cited. -JJ 22:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS mentioned below. Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Inshore models

• " seems to be largely rejected" - says...?
• "Wells et al. alternately suggested that as a terrane at the margin of the continent was pushed over the Yellowstone hotspot it was rifted away from the continent by the upwelling magma" - suggest a comma somewhere there; it's kinda long.
• Bracket issue with Babcock et al. (1992)
• Another naming convention thing with Wells et al. 1984

Slab windows

• What is "asthenospheric magma"?

I've revised and added wikilinks. ~JJ 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Four bracketing issues: Thorkelson & Taylor (1989) and Babcock et al. (1992) (following the pioneering work by Dickinson & Snyder 1979). Breitsprecher et al. (2003)
• A fifth at Madsen et al. (2006)

∗ All "bracketing issues" arise from the template. Nothing to fix here. ~JJ 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They're not accepting the second bracket? Darn :/. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• No citation past "increased flow of magma"

Au contraire: "The implications of this for Siletzia were first shown by Thorkelson & Taylor (1989) and Babcock et al. (1992) (following the pioneering work by Dickinson & Snyder 1979)."

Ahh, just an unfamiliar cite style. Can I suggest standardising within the page? While that format is very pretty, consistency within the article is recommended. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a little awkward looking, but... For the most part the details of sources are not so significant or interesting, and I put them in a note so they do not impede the narrative. However, there are some sources that are so notable that they pretty much must be mentioned in the text (e.g.: Simpson & Cox 1977; Duncan 1982; Wells et al. 1984; Babcock et al. 1992). The inconsistency is not because I waver on which form to use, but because some sources are significantly more notable. The names are also useful in identifying various models or positions which are not otherwise definitely named, especially where there is not yet a solid enough consensus to which the generic "scientists say" could be applied. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I try to achieve the same things, but via explicitly calling out the works in prose and then seperately citing them as needed. The inconsistency in styling means it's inconsistent, to the reader, in what is/is not a reference (I imagine more people than just me associate references with the little [numbered boxes], although that's completely subjective), which worries me. Is there any chance I can change your mind? If not, we can move on. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's always a chance. Yes, many editors do think the <ref>...</ref> tags make the "reference" that the boxed numbers link to. But that is incorrect, and it has led to profound confusion as to what citations (references) are and where they can be placed. I agree with the general requirement for consistency; the question is whether exceptions are forbidden. This could be finessed by arguing that something like "Robert Simpson and Alan Cox (1977)" is not a citation (or not a proper citation?), but that seems, ah, petty? My thinking is that where ever "Robert Simpson and Alan Cox" is acceptable "Simpson & Cox" should be equally acceptable. I suspect that one element here is that inclusion of first names gives the text a friendlier, less formal tone. However, this goes against the expectation of many editors that an encyclopedia should have a formal, "academic" tone. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think both are totally acceptable (I tend to use firstlast for the first mention, and last for successive mentions, since that allows me to neatly dovetail an explanation of who the individual is into the first comment) as ways of identifying people, but that doesn't seem to directly relate to the citation style - in the sense that you can both mention who the academic/researcher/geologist is and distinctly reference the work you're quoting or drawing from in a way that is consistent with the other references on the page. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Who determined the work was 'pioneering'?

Citations added. ~JJ 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• No citation for that paragraph past "Initiated by a slab window"

Working on it. ~JJ 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Gulf of Alaska

• Looks good to me :). Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

After accretion

• "can be given a definite date most studies give it as about 50 Ma" - suggest a comma after 'date'
• "north-south striking right-lateral" takes a few reads to process; any way you can think of to make it simpler?
• The OWL hasn't been mentioned for four or five sections - suggest linking again, or spelling it out.
• Link "Cascade Mountains"?
• "there was a change in absolute direction of Pacific plate" - "the Pacific plate" (I think?)
• "Tyee Formation in southern Oregon of may have continued as late as 46.5 Ma," - stray "of", or missing word?
• What's an "upwelling plume"?
• I think that's it! Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  Did all revisions except the comma — I don't think it's needed, and it interrupts the flow. The "upwelling plume" is the Yellowstone Hotspot.

  Well, almost done. I think the article is incomplete without either describing the relationship with the Farallon plate, or mentioning that the geologists have no clue. I'm working on that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Great; just drop me a talkpage message when you're done and I'm happy to review. Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds: A heads up that I'm just about there. I couldn't find any discussion on (or geologists willing to discuss) the relationship with the Farallon plate, so I rewrote the end of "Extent" to finess the problem. I still need to revise some page numbers where a source was revised, and perhaps a few other details, but I think we are close to winding this up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for keeping me in the loop :). Let me know when you're comfortable with me reviewing (translation: when you're done - there's nothing people hate more than someone stopping them from doing X because they need to tell them 'you should totally do X!') and I'll get on it. Happy Newtonmas festivities, to boot :). Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds: I think that's it. I could wish for a little more on the relation with the Farallon plate, but I seem to be running ahead of the experts in that regard. I looked over the comments above; I think everything is covered. (And, Happy Humbug to you, too!!!) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool; I'll start work now :). Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So, looking at the additions since November, everything seems solid. Have I missed anything substantive prior to that? Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that covers it. Except I did just remove from "Extent" the recently added line about part of Siletzia being found under Idaho. An interesting example of why we are cautioned about using primary sources: it wasn't until I looked at a secondary source — essentially, stood back a little bit from an intensely technical discussion — that I realized that the authors seemed to have confused "Siletzia" with "Farallon plate". (Or assumed an identity other authors would dispute.) It seems sounder to not follow them quite that far. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh; very much so :). In that case, I declare this good article...opened! *snips ribbon*. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Oliver, very much, for hanging through a lengthy process. And for focusing my attention on a number of weak spots that needed further consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.