Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons 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 kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008.

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

 * Notified WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Geology and Mav.

Not a single inline citation. Some MoS issues, and the prose could use some copyediting. Wouldn't pass GA as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Was promoted to FA at a time when inline cites were not needed. I'll add them and perform a copyedit to bring this to current FA standards. --mav (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wouldn't pass GA" is not an argument, and it sounds quite pompous. This rhetorical tone ("not a single inline citation"), adopted too often by FAR "introducers", does not exactly promote an environment in which one would want to assist the process. What a delight it would be if FAR actually required more than two cut-and-paste sentences for someone to initiate the process. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were reviewing this article in its current state for GA, I would most certainly fail it. As such, we cannot have FAs that are of lesser quality than GAs, so that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record I was not offended by Juliancolton's comment. This article legitimately was found to be one of the best of Wikipedia back in 2004. However, standards have increased (esp in regards to inline cites) since then, prompting a need to upgrade the referencing and MoS compliance of this article. That our standards have increased is a good thing. --mav (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many inline cites added; more to come. --mav (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, obviously Mav is adding some, so Julian please be patient. I understand and realize that the article is not Fa quality, but trust me, it will be. Mav has 20 fas under his belt. He will get it done. -- Meld    shal    42?   23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that Mav is working hard at it. My suggestion is to use some references other than the Harris book. Once the referencing is done, the next major step is to cut down on some images. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. Text to image balance will be much better once the article is expanded, negating any need to remove images. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet more cites added. I also started to expand the article using some great PD text from the NPS that was published a couple years after this article was FAd. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion from PD NPS text complete. I still need to do another reference pass once I find the Tufts, Leach and Zion Map sources. If I have time, I'd also like to confirm and directly use the hidden inline cites to Biek et al. 2000, which were what the PD text cited. Biek et al. 2000 is in a book I purchased after this article became FA. --mav (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note (I'll give a full list of things to do later): per MoS, don't left-align images directly under level-3 (===) section headers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems like an odd MoS guideline. Could you provide a link to the page and section? I'd rather rearrange sections vs follow that under the current arrangement. --mav (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes, from MOS:IMAGES. Not a big deal, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sounds reasonable. I thought that you meant that no images were allowed to be left-aligned inside level 3 sections. I think I just fixed this particular issue and the article looks better now. --mav (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Inline cites now exist for all the listed sources. The only two things I see that are still needed are a final copyedit and maybe a final ref pass to swap some Graham inline cites with the superior Biek et al cites. What else, besides a copyedit, is needed? --mav (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead seems a tad sparse for an article of such length. I'd say try to flesh it out to three moderately-sized paragraphs. Otherwise, I'll try to help with some copyediting. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - you are correct. I'll see about expanding the lead in the next day or two. --mav (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, article has improved significantly since initial comment by. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I haven't forgotten this. I simply have been working on another article and watching coverage of the DNC convention. I'll get back to this FAR during the upcoming long weekend. --mav (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead expanded, copyedit complete, MoS pass done and Biek refs confirmed and unhidden. I think I'm done now. --mav (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor point, but I've never seen an FA with so many redlinks. Shouldn't they be discouraged?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redlinks in general aren't discouraged, though it is indeed more visually pleasing to have them eliminated. My question to Mav is if these faults and other redlinked geographical features are notable enough for their own articles, or if they can be redirected somewhere. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All the formations at least are notable enough. Some of the other redlinks are not really (including the faults and minor geological features). I'll de-link some redlinks. --mav (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --mav (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure; prioritized US units first, and added commas in a few large numbers. I have not copyedited, as the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension at my current level of margaritization. (That should totally be a word.) Maralia (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only time for a quick glance, but work remains; not ready to keep yet. Check WP:MSH re: "The", and I saw a lot of lacking hyphenation. I'll look more closely tomorrow. Also, WP:OVERLINKing and some confusing prose (look at the first paragraph of the article, after the lead. Is it "The Grand Staircase" or "Grand Staircase". First we hear of the Grand Canyon, confusing, how we got there from here.  Is the hyphenation correct on the 240 million year old?  A whole lot of verbiage before Grand Staircase is introduced.  Why are words like mountain linked?  The entire section is confusing in terms of which park is which and how they all got introduced suddenly under The Grand Staircase.  I think north-south has to be north–south when it means north to south.  Copyedit needed, and hyphenation issues everywhere:  to form the 1,800 foott (550 m) thick Moenkopi Formation.  and of the resulting 100 foot thick (30 m) Dakota Sandstone ... too many parenthetical inserts to "See" another article, should be templates at the top of sections or worked into the prose. This is just a quick pass, but I think this article needs more than just citation: it needs another prose look and smoothing out of some of the prose and copyediting glitches, and auditing for clarity for the uninitiated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The" nixed. Many hyphens fixed (I hope) but I sure could use some examples still in the article of incorrect vs correct hyphen and en/em dash usage. That's not something that was covered much at all in any of my English classes. As for overlinking; I removed most if not all redundant links but this article is about geology, thus linking once to terms such as stream, desert, lagoon and mountain are relevant to the topic and thus appropriate to link, no? Context added at start of Grand Staircase section. North-south fixed. Parenthetical (see ...) inserts taken care of. Another copyedit also done. Any help will be greatly appreciated and I'll make sure to learn from your efforts. --mav (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better now, except you made the hyphenation issues on conversions worse :-) I left you a Tony1-suggested method (see sample edits) for avoiding those awkward constructs; just reword to work around them.  There are still some more (I wasn't convinced I was wording them correctly, so I stopped); once you fix those, I think it's good to go.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I dropped the hyphens on all of the -thicks. The MoS doesn't seem to suggest that a hyphen would be needed and it strikes me as a little weird (I'm "1.75 meters tall" not "1.75 meters-tall"). I will keep this now. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.