Talk:Raised beach

Picture
I have removed this picture because it is not of a raised beach as the caption explains SuzanneKn (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)



Too technical?
Out of curiosity I looked at a recent edit in which an article titled "Marine terrace" was merged with Raised beach, and as often happens, I started copy-editing the article as I was reading it. I only got part-way through the article. I'll probably continue copy-editing and reading it tomorrow, but as I was reading it, I thought the language of the article was a bit technical and overly academic for a Wikipedia article. Also, I thought the in-line citations in the section Raised beach were quite distracting. – Corinne (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This article was originally written in an overly-academic style and that has been acknowledged to be a problem. is a surviving paragraph from that (the section was formerly titled "Tectonic and/or eustatic use of marine terrace sequence"! The material I merged here from Marine terrace was a bit better and I tried to favor it where possible. I did this work as part of WP:WPMERGE and am not an expert on the subject so some adjustment may still be needed. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kvng, both for your comment and for the work you've done. Maybe Gorthian can help. – Corinne (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Assignment to evaluate this article
1.	The article suggests several ways that raised beaches can be used to gain proxy information. The kinds of dating are broken down into two types, correlational and direct, and direct, and from there the article does a good job of describing how one would analyze the data those methods produce, particularly for someone who is not experienced in these areas and has a hard time understanding. This article also manages to highlight some strengths and weaknesses, though not a ton. One weakness mentioned was that unconformity in sediment sequences may make the analysis of strata difficult, which I thought was a good thing to point out. However, the article does not specifically or outright address assumptions being made, which I would say could be improved. 2.	The peer-reviewed articles listed are fairly current, although there are not many from the last five years or so, and do a good job of demonstrating the use of this proxy. However, I did find a couple of peer-reviewed articles that use this proxy that are not listed on the Wikipedia page. One of these sources is an article titled “Dating High Arctic Holocene relative sea level changes using juvenile articulated marine shells in raised beaches” and was published in the Quaternary Science Reviews, and the other is an article called “Assessing the link between coastal morphology, wave energy and sea ice throughout the Halocene from Antarctic raised beaches” and was published in the Journal of Quaternary Science in 2015. 3.	One recommendation I have for improving this article is to update some of the sources with peer-reviewed sources from the last five years or so because as more research goes on in this field, I’m sure there will be more to add and there could be recent research that could be helpful to include. I also think that while the pictures are pretty to look at, if pictures of the actual dating process or samples were included, that would help the reader get a better visual of how the dating process occurred. Snoc1197 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)