Talk:Temagami Greenstone Belt/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "Pillow lava exposed at the former garbage dump of Temagami. This represents a portion of the Younger Volcanic Complex." It surely doesn't "represent a portion", it is a portion.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A number of geologic features comprise the belt, such as batholiths, stocks, dikes, volcanic complexes, layered intrusions and deformation zones". I'm unconvinced that "comprise" is the correct word here. Does the belt contain such features or is it made up of them?

The belt is made up of them. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "These are situated in several geographical townships in the municipality of Temagami, including Chambers, Strathy, Strathcona, Briggs and possibly Best townships." Why "possibly"? Why aren't we sure?

This is discussed in the article. It is not clear if volcanic rocks in the Rib Lake area are part of the Temagami greenstone belt because they have not been mapped in any detail by governmental geologists. Perhaps Best Township should be mentioned in the paragraph to make it more obvious. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Part of the Canadian Shield, the Temagami greenstone belt contains some of the oldest known rocks on Earth." Haven't we already been told in the previous paragraph that the belt is part of the Canadian Shield?
• "... made up of a number of geologic features". Do you think "geologic" is correct, as opposed to "geological"? Is "geologic features" a term commonly used in the literature?

• The lead is really too short to adequately summarise the article, probably ought to be something like twice the size. There's nothing about mining for instance.

Geology

• "It is interpreted that greenstone belts were formed by many geological processes ...". Interpreted is a strange word to use here, doesn't really fit. What is it trying to say?

Pretty much what "interpreted" means. "Understood". Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Interpreted" doesn't mean "understood", it means" clarified or explained the meaning of". Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to "Geologists assume that greenstone belts were formed by many geological processes ...". Volcanoguy 00:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... operating over different spatial and temporal scales". I'm not following that at all. Over different scales? What's a "spacial scale" anyway?

I'm not 100% sure either, but it might mean that the geological processes operated at different periods and/or magnitudes. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So how do we resolve this, as it doesn't currently make sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will just delete it. It is nothing really important. Volcanoguy 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Intrusions

• "In northwestern Strathy Township, a layered intrusion consists of diorite, pyroxenite, gabbro and anorthositic gabbro". That's just not right. What do such intrusions consist of elsewhere?

I can't see what's wrong here. Intrusions are not always made of a single rock type. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong is the implication that intrusions in northwestern Strathy Township are formed in one way (a layered intrusion of diorite, etc.,) and in some other way(s) elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that says intrusions in northwestern Strathy Township are formed in one way. Also, just because it has one type of rock dosen't mean it formed in one way. Volcanoes generally erupt more than once and can also erupt different types of magma. Volcanoguy 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I quoted says exactly that, and it needs to be rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding. Just because this layered intrusion contains several rock types dosen't mean it's more than one feature. The paragraph makes perfect sense to me. There are other intrusions in the "Intrusions" section that include more than one type of rock. Volcanoguy 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me try and explain it this way. In northwestern Strathy Township a layered intrusion has such and such a composition; elsewhere they have a different composition. It's the general "a layered intrusion" that's causing the problem. Can you not see the difference between what you've written and "There is a layered intrusion in northwestern Strathy Township that consists of diorite etc."? It's not at all clear whether you're talking about a single intrusion in the township or about intrusions in the township in general. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just rewrote in the sentence. See if that is clearer. Volcanoguy 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Several northeast-trending shear zones less than 5 m (16 ft) wide intersect the edifice, which extend along the Net Lake-Vermilion Lake Deformation Zone." What's the subject of "extend"? The edifice (in which case it should be extends) or the shear zones (in which case the "which" clause is too distant from its subject)?

What's being said here is that there are many northeast-trending shear zones less than 5 m (16 ft) wide cutting through the intrusion and they extend along the Net Lake-Vermilion Lake Deformation Zone. Volcanoguy 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "An intrusion of light-colored diorite lies at the northern end of the Tetapaga Syncline, along the Milne-Sherman Road. Its coloration is the result of plagioclase weathering, which comprises more than 50% of the intrusive rock". It doesn't make sense to say, as this sentence does, that the weathering comprises more than 50% of the intrusive rock.

Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "At least three large granitoid intrusions intrude the Temagami greenstone belt". So intrusions intrude? Hardly needs saying, does it?

Replaced "intrude" with "penetrate". Volcanoguy 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "At least some of these dikes are interpreted to represent subvolcanic feeders". What does "interpreted to represent" mean? Why "represent" anyway?

Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A pyroxenite dike east of Highway 11 roughly extends to the north-northwest ...". It extends in a rough manner? Or it extends roughly north-northwest?

Reworded to "it extends roughly north-northwest". Volcanoguy 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "This includes a dike exposed along the Kanichee Mine Road in Temagami North ...". The "this" appears to be referring back to the pyroxenite dike of the previous sentence. Is this really saying that the dike includes a dike?
• "A series of northwest-trending dikes composed of diabase are interpreted to represent extensions of the 1,250 million year old Sudbury dike swarm" There's that "interpreted to represent" again.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock alteration

• "Many forms of rock alteration occupy the Temagami greenstone belt ...". These forms can't do any occupying at all. Are you trying to say something like "Many forms of rock alteration can be seen in the Temagami greenstone belt"?

• I think that an introductory sentence to explain what's being discussed in this section would be useful to the general reader.

Mineralization

• "At the Link Lake Formation, high evidence for copper-zinc massive sulfide deposits has been discovered". What does "high evidence" mean"?

Fixed. It ment good evidence. Volcanoguy 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Dikes composed of quartz-feldspar porphyry trend parallel to or lie within the shear zones ...". Trend is a noun, not a verb. What about something like "run parallel"?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Volcanic complexes

• "... and is intruded by mafic intrusions". Intruded by intrusions is rather ugly.

Replaced "intruded" with "penetrated". Volcanoguy 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "... rocks that form four geologic formations". As above, a rather awkward "form ... formations".
• "These dark compressed pyroclastics have been interpreted to be pumice.". What does "interpreted to be pumice" mean? Are they pumice or not?
• "These thin bedded deposits are interpreted to be turbidites that originated from a felsic volcanic vent ...". Please go through the whole article and resolve every occurrence of "interpreted to be".

Mining

• "The Kanichee Mine property, formerly known as Cuniptau Mine, was first discovered in the early 1900s just before the rupture of World War I." The rupture of World War I? What does that mean?

Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "This deluded procedure was continuous until the early 1980s, even though it was a failure from the start." A procedure can't be "deluded", only people can be deluded.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 04:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A railroad was built from the Ontario Northland Railway to Sherman Mine during its years of operation". The railroad was built during the years of the mine's operation? Sounds unlikely, and if true implies that it was never completed.

Reworded.Volcanoguy 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "To this day, not much remains to emphasize residents of its presence." Doesn't make sense, what's it trying to say?

Deleted. Volcanoguy 03:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming

• "The Executive Secretary of this committee subsequently applied to the Lands and Surveys Branch of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests." Is it in some way significant that it was the "Executive Secretary"? Why? What did they apply for?
• "This former department, now part of Ministry of Natural Resources, corresponded with the proposed renaming of Timagami on March 20, 1968, as well as for Lake Timagami, Timagami Island and the Timagami River." What does "corresponded" mean here? Authorized?
• "Further improvements occurred when the Geographical Names Board of Canada agreed to change the name spelling to Temagami on March 27, 1968." In what way was the name change an improvement, much less this an additional improvement?

Mineral explorations

• "As a result, little is known about its geophysical features." Presumably the "its" here is meant to signify Net Lake, but it's actuall referring back to the drill hole, which doesn't really seem to make sense.
• "Most of the property was influenced by Net Lake and included ten adjacent mining claims." The paragraph begins by talking about "properties", not a singular property. Influenced in what way?
• "This rusted zone was announced to contain values of $7.50 combined gold, copper and nickel." What on Earth does that mean?
• "... 0.99% of nickel over 1.8 m (5.9 ft)". What does that mean?
• "In 1964 Nickel Rim Mines Ltd. had a greatest result of 1.30 oz (37 g) of gold per ton". A greatest result? For them? For Temagami? Anywhere? Ever?
• "The exploration and mining activity south of Gillies Limit Township observed nickel, copper and platinum group metals". An activity can't observe anything, only people can do that.
• "Vale announced that it intersected mineralized sulfide zones ...". What does the "it" refer to here? The section of Strathy Township that Vale were prospecting in?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "McVeigh conducted geophysical surveys over Strathy Basins mineralized zone ...". Shouldn't that be a possessive "Basin's"?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "With the existence of Early Archean age tholeiitic and/or calc-alkaline mafic to intermediate volcanic rocks, they may represent a minor continuation of the belt ...". It's not all clear what "with the existence of" means here. Is this saying that in the presence of Early Archean age rocks the volcanic rocks of Rib Lake may be a continuation of the belt? Or something else? Why "represent"?

Human habitation

• I'm a bit surprised to see nothing on this, apart from a few fleeting mentions of the town of Temagami. Is/was that the only human settlement? Do people still live there? If the Ojibwe indians had a name for the place then presumably they inhabited it or roamed across it at some time?

This is a geologic subject, not geography. Volcanoguy 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not buying that. This is a geographical feature 16 miles wide by 20 miles long that already mentions in passing the town of Temagami. An article on a volcano would be expected to cover the flora and fauna and human habitation, so what's different about this one? Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a geographical feature; it's geological. They not the same thing. Geography is the study of stuff like mountains, lakes, glaciers, rivers, plateaus, plains, etc while geology is the study the rocks and minerals. Volcanoguy 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I think it would be better if we closed this review, as it seems unlikely that we will agree. I think this article is a long way from meeting the GA criteria, and I have listed some of the reasons why I think that above. What do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a geographical feature? The dictionary defination of geography is "the science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement, and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries, or states, and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements." The defination of geology is "the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, and chemical changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing." According to this, human habitation, flora and fauna have nothing to do with geology. Greenstone belts are not volcanoes, they are units of bedrock forming the Earth. I will continue to solve the problems. Volcanoguy 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a geographical feature then how are you able to place it within Canadian townships? Habitations are built on "units of bedrock forming the Earth". Flora and fauna live on "units of bedrock forming the Earth". You already mention that the town of Temagami was moved, presumably to allow access to the iron ore beneath it. The article has many examples of this "unit of bedrock forming the Earth" manifesting itself at the surface in the form of intrusions, dikes, and pillow lava, for instance. The presence of minerals close to the surface has obviously attracted human activity and occupation, and will presumably also have had some effect on the flora and fauna. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not you want this review to continue, but right now I'm a long way from considering passing this article. Let me know on my talk page what you decide. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Temagami greenstone belt does not contain human habitation, flora or fauna. That's the thing. You are clueless to what you are talking about. How well is your knowledge about geography and geology? Geology papers, books and websites do not go off-topic discussing plants, animals, people etc. The belt is also largely buried under the surface by soil, gravel and sand. The main areas where the greenstone belt is exposed is at mine sites and road cuts. And the town of Temagami was not moved. They tried to move it but failed to do so, which is what I ment by "This deluded procedure was continuous until the early 1980s, even though it was a failure from the start". And like I said, even if I do mention stuff like human habitation, flora or fauna in this article it will just make the article go off-topic because this article is about a greenstone belt, not plants, animals or people. If an article is about a geological feature it should mainly be focused on that particular feature. The right article to mention stuff like the effects of mining on flora, fauna etc would be another article titled Mining in Temagami, which I am plaining to create. It will be linked in the Temagami greenstone belt article as a see also in the mining section for anyone that wants to know more about mining in the area and what it has done to the landscape.

From my point of view, you are giving someone a hard time that knows lots about the subject and what they are talking about. It is quite clear you don't know much about geology. I contacted User:Vsmith (who is a geologist) and told him about this review. You can see his comments on his talk page. Volcanoguy 02:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

• Why is there nothing on flora and fauna?

Same thing above. This article is about geology not geography. Human habitation and flora and fauna have nothing to do with the Temagami greenstone belt. Volcanoguy 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)