Talk:Fairfield Osborn Preserve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fairfield Osborn Preserve was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: April 20, 2007

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.

An entry from Fairfield Osborn Preserve appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 November 2006.

This preserve was probably named for Henry Fairfield Osborn the distinguished geologist or perhaps for his son Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr the paleontologist and director of AMNH. The article might say which. --Wetman 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This article is close to GA. Prose is ok; sources ok; NPOV ok; seems stable enough; here are some specifics that need attention:

• should solve redlink for "block fault"
  • This link is now blue-linked to the proper article Anlace 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• articulate the naming issue
  • An edit has been added to clarify the naming Anlace 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• elim some of the redundant links
  • Have started on this. Will finish in the next few days and have some additional detail and references to add to the article. Anlace 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Covalent 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Covalent, do you want to put this article on hold? I was all set to fail it for my own admittedly highly subjective reference standards, but if you want to review this article yourself i'll not do anything. Homestarmy 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I passed this before I noticed this talk page entry as the artilce was not on hold on WP:GAC. I think with the changes already made, it's GA. My suggestions are to: add more web refs so people can see the refs, and add more detail--esp history where something had to have happened btwn 1890-1950 and practical aspects.Rlevse 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisting

I delisted this as a good article because of my concerns about the geology information. This article cited a source that quoted a specific rate of right-lateral slip along the Rodgers Creek Fault, but gave the right-lateral slip rate as an uplift. The geology is a poor conception of the geology of the area and simply cannot be written as it is. Soils are not geology, they are soil, this section should have had the correct geology, and been titled geology and soils, not geology, with soils thrown in. The soil section is much too specific for what a county soil survey actually gives, soil surveys should be reported with knowledge of how the information was obtained and how it relates to the actual soils found in the area. I would like all technical references for this article to be checked for accuracy, and all articles that use these sources or this description of the geolgy of this area to be verified and reworded. The level of the geology appears to be original research, rather than an accurate report from geological papers of the area. KP Botany 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above editor also removed the following sourced material (Wetman 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)):

Until 12 million years ago, this site was part of the seabed of the Pacific Ocean. In the Miocene era, precipitated by the combination of tectonic movement and the presence of magma just below the earth's surface, a massive period of uplift ensued and moved north across California, forming volcanoes in the Petaluma area approximately eight million years ago. Though these volcanoes have long eroded away, the widespread occurrence of basalt and rhyolite on Sonoma Mountain testifies to their existence. Sonoma Mountain itself is not a volcano but a fault-block mountain estimated to be uplifting at a rate of 6.4 to 10.4 millimeters per year along the Rodgers Creek Fault.^[1] The presence of the active Rodgers Creek Fault also attests to this prehistoric tectonic movement.

Yes, I removed all of the questionable and inaccurate information from this article, as the geology is incorrectly worded, not sourced, and the sourced part of the information does not agree with the citation attached to it. Not just for Good Articles, but all articles in Wikipedia must be accurate. Wetman, please use edit summaries in your edits, and thanks for posting the block that I removed in its entirety, as I should have done. KP Botany 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] location

I don't think the article provides enough information on the location of the Preserve. Sonoma Mountain covers a lot of territory. What are the Preserve's coordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepheng3 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)