Talk:Sabinoso Wilderness

Geology
I came here after seeing your query at WIkiProject Geology. I've skimmed through the USGS report, and it looks as if you've summarized it quite well in the "Mineral resources" section. Did you want to add more than that to the article? — Gorthian (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Gorthian. That pretty much covers the summary, which was easy enough, but in the body they go into more depth as far as the types of rock formations in the area, the periods they represent, pages of gravitational measurements (no idea) and the like. It seems fairly important from a scientific standpoint, but it's enough beyond me that I wouldn't know if I were summarizing it wrong, because to me it's just words with no real meaning, and even worse, at times math and symbols with even less. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The details of the geophysical studies are a bit much for this article, especially as most of the results were basically negative. We could expand a bit on the geology beyond that bit re: the 3 formations. The USGS report provides quite a bit more on this. Perhaps rename the Mineral resources section Geology and move the brief 3 formations bit into it and expand with a summary of the additional stratigraphy/structural (the Sierra Grade arch) info of the report. Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I just thought it was too much of a high quality source on a topic with otherwise comparatively little available, and I wanted to squeeze all the information out of it that I could. It's a hundred times better than the current source for the geology factoid currently in the article. Timothy Joseph Wood  09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I've uploaded all the images from the report onto commons, in case they're useful. Timothy Joseph Wood  10:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)