Talk:Touchet Formation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am starting the review of this article. I should have some initial comments in a day or two. Polargeo (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Just a question. The type location was observed by Flint who? At the moment this needs addressing because it just hangs a bit (with no wikilink to help either) Flint is not a full description of the person. Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Clarified in article: Richard Foster Flint, a geology prof from Yale - reference is book Cataclysms on the Columiba by John Eliot Allen, Marjorie Burns, Scott Burns.
2. The article keeps swapping from 'BCE' to 'years ago' to 'B.C.E.' some consistancy is needed. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Made consistent.
3. Several repeated wikilinks. Not critical but could be reduced. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Repeated links removed.
4. Needs coordinates. (A bot has tagged the article for coord missing). Would be good to have the coordinates in but not essential for GA. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Coordinates added
5. Walla Walla river valley section becomes difficult to follow. Specifically what is a 'Gardena Terrace rhythmite' Polargeo (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - clarified this - please evaluate it to determine whether more work is required.
6. Unit conversions are needed. Miles and feet etc. must also be given in SI per MOS:CONVERSIONS. Polargeo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC) -unit conversions added

• At the moment it will not pass GA criteria (1b) based on some of the points outlined above.
• I have added a citation needed tag (therefore criteria 2b). This may be covered by the inline ref at the end of the paragraph but if so this ref could be doubled up. - citation added and tag removed.
• One thing you may wish to consider is an infobox but certainly not essential for GA - None of the Geology infoboxes (virtually all footers) appear to meet the need. I'll have to do some research on how to create and infobox.
• It appears to be a little undercategorized at present but not so that it would fail GA. - added a category - sedimentology.

These issues should be fairly minor so I will put the article on hold for a week. Nice work with the pictures and I hope you can make the edits. Feel free to ask for any clarifications. Polargeo (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments. Sorry about the delay in responding. In the process of moving - and again demonstrating that "three moves equal one fire". I hope to get internet service back and be able to edit again shortly.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the infobox. It is simply a suggestion not a criteria for GA. Good work on the article but still a few things to do with the BCE outstanding. There is still one "years ago" left in the article but more importantly how can you change years ago to BCE without altering the actual numbers by around 2000? I haven't got the references so I don't know what the value should be, but it should be made as accurate as possible. Polargeo (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I didn't get all the dates fixed - and the BCE to current day conversion will require a look up (or an alternate reference). Alas, since I'm still in mid-move (with all my books in boxes) it make take a day or three to find some of the references. If you can be patient that long, I'll get it fixed. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated

New materials were identified while trying to identify the best-current-understanding dates. I've added them to the section titled Source of the Touchet Formation. Overall I now beleive the dates reflect current published literature.

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. I will try and get this all checked in the next 2 days. Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through and used the most recent source you gave for the dating of the Missoula floods and transfered dates to BCE. Was a bit of a mess but I think I am there. Please feel free to check. I will wait for you to have a look at the comments of Awickert (a real geologist unlike myself) before completing the GA assessment Polargeo (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer: Awickert (talk)

I'm going to start going through it; it might take me quite a while as my free time has been dwindling. Currently:

1. In the lede, "rhythmites" are described as soils, but the image looks like they are unaltered deposits, and before it mentions them to be sands and gravels; is this characterization in error? ("Soil" is also used in the alt text.) Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   You caught an embarassing gaffe - you can tell I'm not a geologist. Changed to sediments. Williamborg (Bill) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   No worries; that's what I'm here for.. those darn technicalities. Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2. In the "type locality" section, it is written, "Once the mechanism for formation of these phenomena was correctly identified..."; I think at least another sentence is warranted here, because the whole saga of J Harlan Bretz shows that the identification of a mechanism was far from trivial. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   This turned out to be a very substantial observation - I've crafted some material (see Talk:Touchet_Formation#Parked_text_for_possible_inclusion_in_main_article) in an effort to address the inherent question. Polargeo correctly points out this material doesn't fit here, so I'll summarize and figure out a separate place to park it. Williamborg (Bill) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Rewrote Discovery and interpretation to clarify this. Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sounds great; this was actually a significant event in the evolution of geological thought and the understanding of the effects of glaciers in North America, so it will certainly find a place somewhere. I'm impressed at how rapidly you write; I'm barely finding the time to keep up with anything here these days! Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3. In the "formation" section, "Lake Lewis, which formed in the lowlands of the Mid-Columbia." — the Mid-Columbia what? Is a word missing? Or am I just ignorant of the naming in this area? Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Converted to Columbia Basin Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sounds good, Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all for the moment; I've signed the above so we don't get lost in case you want to talk about a particular point. I've only read to the top of the bullet-list of constraints on flood periodicity. Also, in my real life, I have worked / do work on sediment transport and depositional mechanics, among other things, and while that part of the story is pretty straightforward here, I could help to flesh that out especially if you want to take this all the way to FAC. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments. I'll find some time and work them tonight, if possible. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 16:06, 16 November 2009

"My son, beware of these things. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issues, and for the appropriate quote :-). One more:

4. Do you know where this unit crops out? From reading through the article and the refs, it looks like Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. That might be something useful to mention in a couple of places, including the lede. Also, if I am wrong about those three states, my categorization of the article into the "Geology of [state]" categories will need to be undone.

Thanks again, Awickert (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake Lewis was formed when the restricted flow of waters from periodic cataclysmic floods from Glacial Lake Missoula backed up through the constriction formed by the Wallula Gap in the Horse Heaven Hills (southern Washington). These figures thanks to the excellent work published in Last, George V. (2009), Distribution of Mammoth (Mammuthus) and Erratic Finds Relative to the Size of Ice Age Floods in Southeastern Washington State, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-SA-68903 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

To answer your question, I’ll need your help in the form of a geologist’s interpretation. Here are the facts & opinions as I understand them:

• The Missoula Floods deposited sediment throughout the basin of the Columbia River from the Canadian border south. Examples include:
  • Flood bars and sediment-filled side valleys in Idaho’s Rathdrum Prairie region
  • Giant flood bars (e.g., West Bar & Crescent Bar near the outlet of Moses Coulee, Pendant Bar on the Snake River, Priest Rapids bar downstream of the Saddle Mountains water gap, Cold Creek Bar & Gable Mountain Bar on the Hanford Site, all the way down to Alameda Ridge in Portland)
  • Large-scale current ripples (e.g., the floor of former Lake Missoula, Washtucna Coulee, lower Snake River, Hanford Reach).
  • Sedimentation in the various glacial lakes (e.g., Lake Missoula, Lake Columbia) & transient lakes (e.g., Lake Lewis, Lake Condon, Lake Allison)
• Sedimentation in the glacial lakes like Lake Columbia have a significantly different character than sedimentation in transient lakes like Lake Lewis. Lake Columbia shows annual varves between floods, while Lake Lewis does not.
• The literature is rather thin on some of the sedimentation. For example the literature records ice rafted erratics in Lake Condon and some very impressive ones well up Lake Allison, but does not appear to document studies of the sedimentation in valleys like the John Day River Valley or the Willamette River Valley. (Cautionary note: This gap may alternately be a result of my limited knowledge of the literature and inability to search it properly.)
• Part of the gap in discussion is probably the result of the historical discovery process. The Touchet beds are quite distinctive in their multiple, relatively uniform layers and attracted early study as they were part of the early Bretz controversy. Other sedimentation areas apparently did not capture the eye of the early geologists in the same way.
• In the literature the Touchet Formation appears limited to the sediment formations which were deposited in Lake Lewis.
• Lake Lewis lay primarily in Washington, although that part of Lake Lewis which submersed the Walla Walla drainage extended into Oregon. See figure (Last 2009) added to inform discussion.
• I interpret "unit crop out" to be locations where the specific feature is visible (hill tops, slopes, road cuts and other excavations, river banks, etc.). Touchet Beds are only visible in the Washington Columbia Basin and a small part of Oregon Columbia Basin.

Hence I’d propose that the "unit crop out", as identified in this article, be Washington & Oregon, but not Idaho.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree with you, and I'll go through the rest of the article right now. I'll be back soon, I'm guessing GA will be no problem, Awickert (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Penultimate copy edit completed

I've just (I hope) completed all of the actions that were listed here. Major changes with this edit include:

• Figured out how to add an info box & added it (per discussion above)
• Modified the unit crop out to Washington and Oregon (per discussion above)
• Shifted the pictures around so they're better positioned (yes, i know that's on my screeen only and depends on setting/browser etc.)
• Reviewed and cleaned up the references (major change was fixing the sloppiness of reference to Waitt's work (e.g., <ref name=Waitt80/> versus <ref name=Wiatt80/> )
• retitled one of the headers to better fit the actual text flow
• fxed some spelling

I'd like to think this is ready for the final GA blessing. Judges? Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Having some issues connecting the dots (and what the ref says) for the Clague paper in the list of timing constraints. Other than that so far looks good, but unfortunately won't be able to finish looking at it tonight for that reason... getting too sleepy, Awickert (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely busy now in real life, moving home, so I will check in every 2 days. I will wait for Awickert to confirm he is happy or not (and get some sleep) before taking a final look. Polargeo (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for how long it's taken me to get through this. I read through the papers and made some changes, and dealt with minor issues through the rest of the article (parts that I hadn't touched yet). I think that it passes all of the GA-review criteria. Thank you for your patience. Awickert (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pass

I have been happy with the state of the article for a while, my initial suggestions were all met. I wanted to see what was added with the second review and it looks good. Awickert was able to give it the expert eye that I could not. I am happy that the article is now GA standard. Well done with this. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - my first good article - at least the first one in which I contributed more than 50% of the material. Great experience.

Very much appreciate the hard work, contributions and the patience of Polargeo and Awickert. Very instructive process - learned how to do several things I'd never done before in Wiki-technique - and I learned a fair bit about geology as well.

A Thousand Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)