Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Death Valley area/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

Geology of the Death Valley area

Notified: Mav, WikiProject California, WikiProject Geology, 2020-11-23

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are significant unsourced parts in the article. The parts that are sourced rely mostly on pre-2000 books, including for statements such as Debate still surrounds the cause of (Collier, 1990). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A major omission is any mention of the Walker Lane, which it is part of, and any discussion of a change from dominant extension to left lateral strike-slip combined with extension over the last few million years as part of this proposed incipient plate boundary. It's in Death Valley#Geology, but not in this longer article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to FARC - Additional issues brought up during FAR stage, and no work done yet. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I will attempt to update at least part of the article when I get sufficient time to do the rewrite justice - I'm quite busy right now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update, zero edits so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delist, perhaps can be brought back to FAC when re-written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Still at Delist; there is still considerable (albeit untagged) uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, excessive image captions, and I don't believe a job of this size and this late in the game is attainable at FAR. If the article is brought to standard, it can be resubmitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update - Work has begun, and improvements are being made. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - this article requires an almost complete rewrite. For instance, there is a table of salts sourced to a 1966 paper, whose relevancy should be included, and that should be updated completely. At the current pace, it would take half year to save this article I believe, so that a new FAC would be more appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reluctant delist - There's work going on this, but the progress is intermittent and a lot is needed. Probably best to rewrite this outside of FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 00:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Mikenorton: What's your timeline with regards to updating? Do you feel that the issues raised can be addressed within the timeframe of this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: I've made a start on this, but found that although Collier (1990) is mostly out of date, I can't find any sources that give a good overview of more recent developments in the understanding of the geology. There's no shortage of material, but it's hard to rewrite parts of it without straying into WP:SYN of WP:OR territory. It's best I think to let this lapse for now unless anyone else want to have a go. Maybe I'll come back to this and think of an effective way forward, but I'm struggling right now. I will try and at least remove the contradictory parts created by my recent additions. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.