Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Death Valley area/archive1


 * 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) 1:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC).

Geology of the Death Valley area

 * Notified: Mav, WikiProject California, WikiProject Geology, 2020-11-23

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are significant unsourced parts in the article. The parts that are sourced rely mostly on pre-2000 books, including for statements such as Debate still surrounds the cause of  (Collier, 1990). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A major omission is any mention of the Walker Lane, which it is part of, and any discussion of a change from dominant extension to left lateral strike-slip combined with extension over the last few million years as part of this proposed incipient plate boundary. It's in Death Valley, but not in this longer article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC - Additional issues brought up during FAR stage, and no work done yet. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to update at least part of the article when I get sufficient time to do the rewrite justice - I'm quite busy right now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Update, zero edits so far, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist, perhaps can be brought back to FAC when re-written. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still at Delist; there is still considerable (albeit untagged) uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, excessive image captions, and I don't believe a job of this size and this late in the game is attainable at FAR. If the article is brought to standard, it can be resubmitted to FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update - Work has begun, and improvements are being made. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - this article requires an almost complete rewrite. For instance, there is a table of salts sourced to a 1966 paper, whose relevancy should be included, and that should be updated completely. At the current pace, it would take half year to save this article I believe, so that a new FAC would be more appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delist - There's work going on this, but the progress is intermittent and a lot is needed. Probably best to rewrite this outside of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 00:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your timeline with regards to updating? Do you feel that the issues raised can be addressed within the timeframe of this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on this, but found that although Collier (1990) is mostly out of date, I can't find any sources that give a good overview of more recent developments in the understanding of the geology. There's no shortage of material, but it's hard to rewrite parts of it without straying into WP:SYN of WP:OR territory. It's best I think to let this lapse for now unless anyone else want to have a go. Maybe I'll come back to this and think of an effective way forward, but I'm struggling right now. I will try and at least remove the contradictory parts created by my recent additions. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.