Welcome to dextri.com on July 9 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology

Shortcuts

General information

Departments and taskforces

Resources

Daughter WikiProjects

Task list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/todo

Portal:Geology

edit · changes

Welcome to WikiProject Geology, a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of geology. For more information on WikiProjects in general, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects.

Contents

[edit] Goals

[edit] Scope

  • All articles included in the Category:Geology technically fall within the scope of this project. We acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of other projects dealing with specific areas of geology, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes, and will focus this project's attention primarily on those articles which do not fall within the scope of any of these related projects.

[edit] Project Watchlist

The project-wide watchlist is a good resource for looking at which articles are being edited, working collaboratively, and reverting vandalism.

[edit] Open tasks and guidelines

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology:

[edit] Join in!

The list of participants can be found here. If you are interested in participating, please add yourself there!

[edit] Task forces

If you are interested in helping improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Cambrian explosion, please consider becoming a part of the Cambrian explosion task force!

[edit] Articles in need of work

[edit] Near Featured Article status

[edit] Near Good Article status

The following articles are almost ready for GA-nomination - if someone wants to put in a little work they could take them there!

  • Snowball Earth - a detailed article that could be made into a GA with a little work - help appreciated! Verisimilus T 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ice age - a comprehensive article, needs considerable honing

[edit] Other articles

  • Pages needing attention (Geology)
  • Subduction currently okay, however structure of the article needs work. Also lacks information regarding theories of subduction initiation which strikes me as a neccessary addition. As stated on the talk page the current graphic is incorrect (even though it appears to be supplied by the USGS) I'm currently working on a replacement but its going to take a little more time (finals for the next 2 weeks) ClimberDave 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Palaeo-Tethys Ocean page. This page is not neutral regarding the usage of the term Palaeo-Tethys (or Palaeotethys; see Robertson, 2004; Robertson et al., 2004) or its interpretation for tectonic reconstructions. I could potentially help with this. However, it is a bit of a contentious issue.
I see most of these have been set up already; I'll look at adding some images from my fieldwork there. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Transform fault exists as well, using the singular. Cheers Geologyguy 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is only indirectly an article for talus (scree) and no article for pediment (Wikipedia was still the first hit for pediment though, because of the classical kind (pediment) ). I came to find out the difference between the two and saw the absence. 65.96.190.159 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Ring of Gullion AONB - some of my family live near by so I was having a read up, the article is a little weird I briefly spoke with Prof. G. Fitton about the structure a year or two back and from that I was lead to believe that the structure was simply an excellent example of a Ring Dyke resulting from Caldera collapse not "practically unique globally ..[sic]..when a collision of two massive plates may have dislodged into the earth’s mantle an enormous pluton that had intruded into the bottom of the crust at this point". The structure certainly isn't a compressional one but hopefully someone else may have a little more time or knowledge to figure it out. ClimberDave 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly sourced from this goverment website so maybe there is some truth in the article, http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/landscape/designated-areas/aonb/aonb_mourne/aonb_mourne_geology.htm ClimberDave 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Clay - The topic is deceptively simple, but the article is not, it is just simplistic. Drillerguy 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Effective Porosity I came across this article doing wikify work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify and I didn't even know where to begin here. The article is so jargony and rambling that I can't make heads or tails of it enough to help clean it up. It seems like a good topic, but I cannot pull enough information out of it to even write an effective lead section. Someone with some expertise in this area needs to do some serious work here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Cenozoic article does not do a good job addressing the controversies surrounding the causes of the late Cenozoic cooling trends.
  • Lias (group) - someone had used this title to write an article specifically about white lias. I've moved the article to White lias but that leaves the "group" page looking for an article to be written about the group. Can someone here do that? It could then be linked to Blue lias and White lias and a few geological articles which currently link to the lias disambiguation page could be redirected straight to the "group" article. The articles on white and blue lias could also do with (non-commercial) refs. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Done -- Timberframe (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Supercontinents - this article needs urgent attention because some of the definitions are wrong and the list of supercontinents is wrong. I have added some useful info in the discussion section of the article under 'List of Supercontinents and definition' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ear4rgjb (talk • contribs) 2009
  • Geology I've been doing some work over the past few months to bring the geology main article up to date (it was sitting at the first half of the 20th century, mostly). I'd love some (any!) help in expanding it and adding new sections. Awickert (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the article focusses way too much on large scales. What geology is really about is the study of 1) rocks (petrology), 2) rock strata (stratigraphy) and 3) larger scale structures of/in the Earth's crust (structural geology). Geophysics and planetary geology, which now dominate the article, are related subjects, just as Earth history, paleontology, geochemistry, etc. They should be mentioned, especially when they overlap with geology, but the focus of the article should be on the three subdisciplines. Woodwalker (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh - I guess when I was an undergraduate in geology, we focused on the large-scale as well as the small scale, and so "geology" was defined much more broadly. I think the reason my edits made the article go that way (besides the fact that I consider geochronology, Earth structure, and plate tectonics to definitely be within "geology") are that:
  1. The article was focused on pre-20th-century geology, so I added the section on Modern Geology - maybe it would be better to re-structure (once there is enough info) into subdisciplines.
  2. There was a section on planetary geology that I consolidated.
  3. I was just starting, and so with an overview article, I wanted to go as broad-scale as I could (also related to the fact that I consider the broad-scale things part of geology), and so I added the sections on Earth structure, tectonics, and geochron and the time-scale as good general things to know, but not so much in a sense of fields within geology. Thinking of that, the geochron and time-scale sections should be combined, though I'd have to re-structure the "modern geology" section and create a more combined approach, as the geologic time-scale was around before the 2nd half of the 20th century.
So maybe the best conclusion would be to work on adding in more info on petrology, sed/strat, and structural geology, as you say, and try to create a new structure that (a) provides all of the required basic information and (b) Introduces the sub-fields.
Awickert (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right. The boundaries between disciplines are indeed rather vague. Plate tectonics could be seen as geophysics, but geophysics itself can also be seen as a form of geology, etc.
My point is: I think the core disciplines should be more prominently present. I would start with those (say, the "methods" of geology), then mention related things like geochemistry that are less 'core'. The current paragraph "Important principles in the Development of Geology" must be included in this. Expansion is needed yes.
After that, a next part could be on "results from geology", what you call "Modern geology": things like plate tectonics, age of the Earth, Earth history (currently has its own paragraph "Geologic time", rather unnecessary in my POV), etc. Geochronology... good point. Geochronologic methods could be mentioned together with stratigraphy I think. The current paragraph seems excellent to me, nice job.
I like the structure of the practical part ("Applied geology"), this section could still be expanded.
The lists of disciplines and regional geology articles can be removed, but that's my personal taste/POV.
The article starts with a history section. I think the emphasis is too much on the time before guys like Hutton, Cuvier or Smith "invented" modern geology and too little on more recent history. These now form equal parts, but the latter one is probably more than 10x more important. I would skip the Greeks and Arabs altogether, mention Da Vinci and Steno and then go straight to the Victorian age. Woodwalker (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I like your "methods of geology" idea. That could be a good construct to talk about the main things - sed/strat, structure, and petrology, in a way that addresses all of the different kinds of studies that geologists use - field, laboratory, and modeling. I think it could do a good job of being a way to more accessibly describe geology, by building on popular conceptions of geologists.
Results from geology sounds good; I think including something on geologic time is essential (in my POV); maybe it could be better if it is better-integrated with supporting information on geologic history (which is what I tried to do in a quick way in my bulleted list).
I agree - I like the applications section too - I made it! It is very stubbish, though.
I'd like to keep the list of disciplines at least until they're adequately covered in the article - in my (expansionist) POV, it's never bad to have more links, and it helps me to think of what I still need to add. Ditto on the regional geology articles: my POV is to put more links up if possible, to help interested people find articles.
Totally agree on the history/modern part. That's why when I started expanding it, I created the "modern geology" section; Vsmith told me that a lot of the article was lifted from the 1911 Britannica, which explains its 100-year-old bias. I'm less good at removing material than adding (just like the links, a pack rat POV), but I definitely think that the "history" could be dropped down to the bottom, especially once there is enough info on the article to fill up the top.
Thanks for taking the time to make the suggestions, by the way! I had no idea where to take the article.
Awickert (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I created a page in my sandbox to start writing up the methods of geology: User:Awickert/Sandbox/Methods_of_geology. In particular, we would cover all of the classic approaches that are mentioned by User:Woodwalker that one would need for field geology and mapping: structure, sed/strat, and petrology. The goal is that this would become a method-based instead of discipline-based introduction to classic geological investigation, and would link back to the main pages on each of the disciplines involved. Please assist if you have time and interest! Awickert (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weathering - for such a typical high school topic this article is pretty poor. There are 2 references and some confusion over carbonation/carbonatation and dissolution. If I knew more I'd DIY but I don't so I thought I'd leave you a note. Smartse (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Đavolja Varoš - I recognize these type of rock structures, but don't know what they are called or recall enough to do a useful search. I've tagged the article as needing help from this project. If someone could simply identify the structures, then it should be easy to expand the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

As of April 30, 2007 the following categories contained:

Go ahead and expand those you can!

[edit] Article Alerts

Proposed deletion

Stub types for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article reassessment

In the news

Other news

(1 more...)

Article alerts are updated daily by ArticleAlertbot. — Tips /Report a bug / Got ideas? / Suggest news / Feedback

This project article is part of WikiProject Science. Click here for more information.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs