Talk:Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park

A fact from Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Jaramillo Petrified Forest National Park contains trees that were buried in volcanic ash in the Cretaceous period and turned to stone?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park.

Wikipedia

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Bosques Petrificados de Jaramillo National Park, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The sources classify it as a natural monument, but use Petrified Forest National Monument, in Spanish and English, as the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:542D:5F1E:C76D:2CDE:5175:C6EC (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not quite understand what you are getting at here but I wish you would stop tagging the article because I do not like to leave articles I have created with tags. The IUCN source is from 1980 and it is describing the "Petrified Forest Natural Monument" for which it gives an area of 10,000 hectares. With the additional land acquired in 2012, the total area of the present day national park seems to be 61,245 hectares. The forest predated the upthrust of the Andes when the climate was apparently more humid. The ash buried the trees during the formation of the Andes. If you think these facts are poorly stated, why don't you change them rather than tagging the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had anyone request me to stop tagging because "I do not like to leave articles .. with tags." Aren't you more worried about errors than tags? You can ask at one of the Wikipedia projects for help on technical areas like geology. This is usually better than asking people to ignore errors so you don't have tags on articles you created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:9866:2D52:F528:E0EF:7B05:D25D (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence "before the upthrust of the Andes some 150 million years ago," implies that 150 MYa the Andes were upthrust. This is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:9866:2D52:F528:E0EF:7B05:D25D (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence changes the time of the upthrust, "volcanic eruptions, which coincided with the upthrusting of the Andes mountain," and maybe greatly extends the volcanic eruptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:9866:2D52:F528:E0EF:7B05:D25D (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An orogeny is not an event that occurs once, and you keep using it like this, yesterday there was not a mountain, 150 MYa one appeared. The Andes are active mountain ranges. Orogenies take place over millions, even hundreds of millions of years. I am "tagging" this article because the word continues to be used incorrectly thus changing the meaning.

I am also not sure what you are trying to say. 2601:285:101:7076:70CF:BD1:C6EA:151F (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is not worse than misinformation[edit]

This article makes the volcanic eruptions which buried the trees sound like an event, but if they coincided with the upthrust of the Andes, they are not a discrete event but an ongoing one that started in the Late Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous and continue to today.

This is very confusing to discuss the volcanic eruptions as "coinciding" with the upthrust of the Andes, but there is no link to this 150 million years of volcanism or discussion of it in the article on the Andean orogeny, which, in fact, suggests that volcanism is not ongoing.

2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A light technical review[edit]

Came over from the geology Wikiproject. The geology section was fine as it was; either someone had cleaned it up a bit before I got here, or else I'd say the tag was a bit overzealous. The chronology makes sense, so I removed it. Did a very minor bit of reformatting and clarifying while I was here. DanHobley (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]