Talk:Weald–Artois Anticline

Origin of the English Channel

One of my edits, the one in which I removed the text ..., resulting in a chalk ridge eventually reaching a height of about 180 metres. was reverted by BanyanTree. I didn't remove this information without reason. The source does not cover the information, it just states that:

The later Oligocene to middle Miocene saw the main phases of the Alpine (Helvetic) Orogeny which was represented in the British region by... ...uplift of Exmoor in the south-west, and the Weald-Artois Anticline in the order of c.180 m in the south-east.

Tectonic uplift is not the same as a change in altitude of the surface. It just means that a certain deep layer rose by 180 m. It is however highly unlikely that the surface rose continuously from the late Oligocene to middle Miocene (at least 15 million years) without any erosion taking place during the same period. In fact, it would not surprise me if erosion had simultaniously scraped off for example two thirds of the total uplift. The uplift of 180 m from the quoted website thus can never be simply translated into the formation of a chalk ridge eventually reaching the height of 180 m.

I assume no-one went back to the late Oligocene and middle Miocene to measure the difference in altitude for himself, so the article states an unknown value as a fact and falsely cites the website as a source for it. That is why I removed the sentence, together with the reference. Woodwalker (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't doubt your knowledge in this field, I disagree with the removal given that the source appears credible and the content is relevant. I have reworded in an attempt to accurately relay the information in the source, and included a statement about erosion outside the citation. Your reasoning above is of course original research and cannot be used to overrule a credible source per the "verifiability, not truth" standard, but hopefully a supporting reference to the qualifier might be found. If not, it may be removed in the future as unsupported speculation. Feel free to reword if I haven't captured the argument. - BanyanTree 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edit made the text capture the information given in the source accurately. I assume the website was written by a geologist or geomorphologist, they seem to have (unintentionally perhaps) assumed their readers possess some foreknowledge in the general subject. I changed the wording a little because "orogenic" is usually only used for mountain belts. Woodwalker (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifying edit. Cheers, BanyanTree 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect decapitalisation of article title

The title of this article should correctly be as it was originally set out with an upper case 'A' for anticline since the phrase 'Weald-Artois Anticline' describes a unique feature; it is a proper name. perhaps given that it cannot readily be altered back after the unfortunate 'correction' in November 2008, an administrator might do that at some point. Geopersona (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry for my earlier mistake. It was easy to fix. The redirect that was created by the move was never changed, so I could have simply moved over that. But instead I moved to "Weald–Artois Anticline", with a dash instead of a hyphen. This is per MOS. Hans Adler 20:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it be "peninsula" or "isthmus"

See the sentence containing "and finally severed the slender peninsula". Surely this was an isthmus, rather than a peninsula. I'm afraid to change anything, without consulting someone who knows this article. If that person would make the suggested correction, I will be grateful. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)