Talk:Geology of the Pacific Northwest

Fleshing out the article
Previously, the article wasn't coherent --- it talked about some interesting individual geological features, but didn't really relate them to each other, and didn't give an overview for non-experts. Contrast it to Geology of the Appalachians, or even Geology of the Yosemite area. What I've done is restart the article, using USGS PD information as an overview. We can fill in more material and details. hike395 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've improved it a lot. Thanks!  Cheers Geologyguy 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Should a section on the Olympic Mountains of Western Washington be included? Jpsfitz (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is decent, and well written. But I see two main deficiencies (in case anyone is interested in working on it). First, it is rather a description of geological (or geographic?) features, and lacks both description of the underlying processes (e.g., subduction, movement of plates, etc.) responsible for these features, and any common theme relating these features into a common story. (For an example of how these issues can be handled find a copy of McKee's Cascadia – sadly out of date, but a good model – or Figge's recent Evolution of the Pacific Northwest.)

Second, "the Pacific Northwest region of the United States and Canada" is ambiguous. Is it the geopolitical Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, but excluding the south-western portion of Canada)? Or the Pacific Northwest of the North American continent, which can be aligned with a distinct geological province? The geology of the northern halves of Washington and Idaho are closely linked to the geology of southern British Columbia, and should (as the the article does) be considered together. I don't know if it would be good idea to change the title, but certainly the ambiguity should be clarified. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbia Basin is a preferred term, rather than Columbia Plateau, which is often erroneously used. 67.183.204.32 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)J. Czajkowski :)

GA class within reach?
I'm not much of a geology guy, but can anybody with more background comment on whether Good article status is within reach for this article? What would need to be added/fixed to make it a good candidate? -Pete (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)