Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Bryce Canyon area/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

 * Notified: mav, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Utah, diff for talk page notification

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns raised by Z1720  on the talk page a month ago that haven't been addressed, namely unsourced paragraphs. Also, the article is quite short for a FA, I'm not convinced it comprehensively covers the topic, and there are additional sources on Google Scholar not cited in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The shortness of this article has already been brought up in the past. See the first featured article review where the article's creator and FAC nominator, Mav, commented: "As for size; even after I'm done this isn't going to be large article due to the fact that there isn't that much to say about the geology of the area." Volcanoguy 06:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was back in 2007. So it's possible the article is long enough, or it's possible there's more to say. That's why I brought it up. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC: I did a search for post-2007 sources for "Bryce Canyon geology" on Google Scholar and got 1090 hits. On JSTOR, there were 161 hits for post-2007 sources. I am not an expert in this field, but I'm skeptical that this article is comprehensive if there are no post-2007 sources. Newer sources should be assessed and added if relevant. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per Z1720. I'm also a bit concerned that there's likely more to say about the Grand Staircase from a background perspective, and that the hoodoos material relies on a single source (NPS) while the Cretaceous seaways section is almost exclusively sourced to Davis & Pollock. Hog Farm Talk 13:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist: I haven't seen any analysis of more recent sources on this topic, and so I don't think this article is comprehensive anymore. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - I am likewise concerned about comprehensiveness here. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.