Talk:Columbia River Basalt Group/Archive 1

Comprises
In a recent edit summary: "someone reversed "is comprised of" to "comprises" (which completely changes the meaning)" so simplified wording to "is made up of"

"Comprises" means "is made up of" or "is composed of". "Is comprised of" is flagged as informal or incorrect by many dictionaries. See also comprise. The "is made up of" wording is fine too though, so no need to change it. -- JHunterJ 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Steens flow
The scientific opinion seems to moving towards the Steens flow being the initial ("oldest") event. Any opinions re updating the article to reflect that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Made a minor chage based on Camp reference, but the whole dating issue needs to be unraveled. Will chat with Steve Reidel at WSU to to determine what he recommends for references.
 * Thanks for spotting this out of date information - Williamborg (Bill) 20:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Steve is one of the best people to ask (and I am impressed that you know him). I wonder if he would have any suggestions regarding the article as a whole? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so hard to ask - i'm taking Steve's intro Geology course this term - he seems eminently approachable. And yes, i'm sure he'll have some useful comments on the article - but before asking him to review it, i'm inclined to clean up some of the obviously outdated material. As you pointed out with your comment on Steens, the literature has evolved quite a bit since this article started back on 2006 - and it appears Steens and CRBG are now considered different parts of the same large igneous province. I pulled a bunch of articles today and will try to incorporate some of the more recent material. And update the dates - which are now internally contradictory. I'd appreciate your critiques as this evolves over the next few weeks. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 06:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Before asking him to review the article, see if he'd suggest what major points ought to be covered. Also, I would suggest converting the article to Harv templates, with which I would be happy to assist. And let me know if need any help finding articles. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

<== Good idea. Will ask Steve about his view of the major points.

Know that there has been a debate whether Harvard ref (HR) should be the preferred usage, which has gone on unresolved on Wikipedia forever. Myself, i don't have that strong an opinion. Mostly i think references should be used, irrespective of the formatn. However, i can see at least one advantage of HR - it is easier to add material from a reference without having to search for the first use. But the alternative notation works easily enough too. Regardless, if you want to convert the article to Harvard notation, feel free. It will be an interesting exercise for me to adjust.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 01:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay! It is a lot easier to manage references (and citations) with Harv. I am also a strong advocate of pulling bibliographic detail out of the text (which makes both the text and the bibliogrpahic detail easier to read and edit) and putting it into a separate References section (which makes it easier to check and groom the references). Also, "named refs" are not congenial for specific citation (e.g., page numbers and such). Fortunately, this article is still small enough that it won't be difficult to convert. I'll try to get to it sooner than later. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes! You're running well ahead of me!
 * Several details to sort out. First, I would urge use of citation templates rather than the family. Second, I find vertical formating of the templates to be much clearer than stringing everything together horizontally (and am going to do that unless you have a strong objection). Third, do you prefer to go with full names? or last names and initials? I have previously tended toward initials, but am feeling more inclined towards full names (when available). There is also a view of going with the style of the original journal. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a little nagging reminder: are you okay using citation templates rather than the templates? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on article upgrade
Following up on J. Johnson's thoughts with a first order summary of what might be done. Feel free to supplement or revise this list:

1- The evolving understanding including Steens, Picture Gorge et al.
Tie in Steens, Picture Gorge & other coeval basalt flows (using literature) -
 * Update map to show flow overlap into Nevada, California & Idaho Geofeatures-PacificNW.png
 * include Yellowstone hotspot discussion
 * Incorporate dike/dyke maps
 * Camp & Ross discuss, "The Oregon High Lava Plains represents is a complementary system of propagating rhyolite eruptions contemporaneous with the Snake River Plain propagation since �10 Ma, but in an opposite direction." Incorporate...
 * Include timeline showing flows in sequence
 * Tie in with Picture Gorge Basalt flows & Fort Rock -

2 - Stratigraphy
Sort out the Ma sequence to the most recent dating/thinking
 * Consider Goldschmidt Conference 2005: Field Trip Guide to the Columbia River Basalt Group; accessdate = 2011-08-28 table as a partial resource for the CRBG timing
 * GEOLOGY OF WASHINGTON - COLUMBIA BASIN for material on depth of flood basalts in Pasco Basin and what lies below...

3 - LIP Context
Put into context as a large igneous province
 * Address the controversy about creation
 * Compare to and contrast with comparable traps (e.g., Deccan and Siberian)

4 - Columbia Gorge & west
Tie in with the Columbia Gorge
 * Add photos (e.g., gorge basaltic features like Crown Point, western Oregon basalt features like Silver Falls, & Oregon headlands. [[Image:Vistahouse.jpg|thumb|right|Crown Point in the [[Columbia River Gorge]] is Grande Ronde basalt per Bishop]] South Falls, Silver Falls State Park.jpg
 * Tualatin Mountains above Portland are comprised of Grande Ronde basalt - check and Bishop, Ellen Morris (2003). In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0-88192-789-4.
 * Saddle Mountain (Clatsop County, Oregon) is comprised of Grande Ronde basalt Breccia
 * Tie in with the Willamette River basin

5 - Sources
Possible references and resources:
 * Goldschmidt Conference 2005: Field Trip Guide to the Columbia River Basalt Group

A trailing "❌" indicates that a search for a readily accessible copy (such as a pdf) was negative.

A B



 * See also Baksi, 2006, Discussion
 * See also Baksi, 2006, Discussion













C - E
















F - H









 * A document was found, but haven't figured out the url.
 * A document was found, but haven't figured out the url.





I-J






K - R










S-Z










Unfiled

 * Egger, Anne E. and Elizabeth L. Miller; Evolution of the northwestern margin of the Basin and Range: The geology and extensional history of the Warner Range and environs, northeastern California; Geosphere, June 1, 2011, v. 7, no. 3, p. 756-773
 * Lerch, Derek William, Elizabeth Miller, Michael McWilliams and Joseph Colgan; Tectonic and magmatic evolution of the northwestern Basin and Range and its transition to unextended volcanic plateaus: Black Rock Range, Nevada; Geological Society of America Bulletin, March 1, 2008, v. 120, no. 3-4, p. 300-311
 * Kamenov, George D., James A. Saunders, Willis E. Hames and Derick L. Unger; MAFIC MAGMAS AS SOURCES FOR GOLD IN MIDDLE MIOCENE EPITHERMAL DEPOSITS OF THE NORTHERN GREAT BASIN, UNITED STATES: EVIDENCE FROM Pb ISOTOPE COMPOSITIONS OF NATIVE GOLD; Economic Geology, November 1, 2007, v. 102, no. 7, p. 1191-1195
 * Kamenov, George D., James A. Saunders, Willis E. Hames and Derick L. Unger; MAFIC MAGMAS AS SOURCES FOR GOLD IN MIDDLE MIOCENE EPITHERMAL DEPOSITS OF THE NORTHERN GREAT BASIN, UNITED STATES: EVIDENCE FROM Pb ISOTOPE COMPOSITIONS OF NATIVE GOLD; Economic Geology, November 1, 2007, v. 102, no. 7, p. 1191-1195

6 - Good Article Criteria
Review against good article criteria
 * Verify the article has reliable sources – see Verifiability.
 * Verify the topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * Resolve and remove cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-tags.)
 * Also page numbers needed. (J. Johnson (JJ) (talk))

Other comments appreciated - Williamborg (Bill) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes & comments

 * I think there should be more connections to the broader context. E.g., the Yellowstone hotspot (a large, related topic, though the article is deplorable) and other Large igneous provinces, perhaps the Deccan and Siberian Traps specifically. These flows are also central to the scenic attraction of the Columbia Gorge (which has a deplorable Geology section)), and various outcrops on the Oregon coast (which a large population would find of interest). Ah, so much to do! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorporated your thoughts into the above list, which i'll use as a check list... Williamborg (Bill) 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * More comments. I see you brought in the Goldschmidt map. I can't complain too much about that map (as I brought it to Wikipedia), but I think there are other maps which better show the CBRG flows, and without the other cluttering details. E.g., see Camp & Ross, Radiating Volcanic Migrations: An example from the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A..
 * Agree there are better maps. The problem is finding one that is prepared with USG funds or is otherwise in the public domain. Like your suggested map, but would need to find it or recreate it... 
 * It can be a bit of a hassle, but many scientists are willing to contribute their images. I suspect Vic Camp would be willing if he was asked nicely. (It is so gratifying to have images even better than what the journal published. And the small hassle can be deemed character building.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Under LIP I see you struck out "address controversy about creation". Check with Steve about this, but I believe that here it's not so much a "controversy about creation" as a "question about origin". This is where matters get tied into the YSH, which is controversial, and so probably warrants some addressing. Check out The Columbia River Basalts & Yellowstone Hot Spot: A Mantle Plume?, as well as Camp & Ross (above). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually used strikeout only to indicate I've attempted to incorporate it into the article. Quite a bit of work to be done though...  thanks for the further recommendations - still quite a ways to go - Williamborg (Bill) 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, as in "done". You might find done-t, or even working, useful. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Work area
Contents moved to References section in article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)