Talk:Geology of Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Geology of Scotland has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A summary of this article appears in Scotland.
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Scotland may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 metres, use 20 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 metres.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), grey (B) (American: gray), molt (A) (British: moult).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broad in coverage

The seems to be nothing on economic geology - mining, geological hazards (even to say there are no earthquakes at all) Graeme Bartlett 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Earthquakes are infrequent and usually slight. The Great Glen is seismically active, but the last event of any size was in 1901. See Earthquakes in the Inverness Area. I'll add a comment to 'post glacial events'. Economic geology is mentioned in passing - see Carboniferous and Jurassic - but there is no section devoted to this. Oil and gas get a fair coverage in Economy of Scotland, but references to mining would be largely about its significance in the past rather than the present. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no geologist, and I liked this article, but it is too technical in its language. You can't use words like "orogeny" without explanation. It's a really good article, but I can't help but feeling it is written for people who are geologists. Hope that helps.--Docg 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tweaks Doc. It is certainly written for the benefit of those with an interest in geology, but I hope it's not too technical. Caledonian orogeny is linked after all, and by comparison with many science articles (e.g. Goldbach's conjecture, Rotaxane, Abdominal aortic aneurysm to take three at random) I hoped it might be fairly light-reading! Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any famous Geology schools, museums or other information resources in Scotland? Graeme Bartlett 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Edinburgh University are not shy of claiming that they are the 'Birthplace of Geosciences' - see [1] and Aberdeen University are good on petroleum geology. I think the Hunterian in Glasgow has (or had) an exhibit, but there's nothing significant that I know of. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

I think that it's mainly tidying up.

Attempted and hopefully done.
  • petrology could do with a gloss - shouldn't need to have to link through find it means study of rocks
Done
  • "Map" of Pangaea sounds a bit definitive for what can only be a rough idea - not sure what would be better
Alternative provided, with slightly more impressive academic qualifications.
  • In the quote box, the ref looks very clunky - why not just leave the writer's name and reflink as with all the other in-lines?
Done - or at least I've figured out how to do it. It can be simplified further if desired.
  • I still think that the reflist would look better in two columns or with all the McKirdy quotes de-page numbered and multilinked to the in-lines - but that's up to you.
I'm intending to keep the detail as I'd like to think this is a possible FA candidate at some point in the future. I'd be delighted to put the refs in two columns, but having looked around I can't see an obvious method of doing it.
OK, I've two-columned the footnotes - I've split from general refs because I think it looks better, but by all means recombine if preferred.
Another interesting discovery 'on Safari'. I wondered why editors kept changing 'references to 'reflist2' - it looks just the same using this browser!
  • The one bold 84 in the quotes looks odd
This is a function of the citation template. I've replaced it.
  • Am I right in thinking that Scotland is still rising as a rebound from the last ice age? If so, is it worth mentioning.
Done

I'll have another read through tomorrow, too tired tonight. Jimfbleak 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk

OK, the only other issue was that "Lewisian gneiss" and "Torridonian sandstone" actually linked to just Gneiss and Torridonian respectively, which is misleading, but I've fixed those two at least. I think that all this needs now to pass is the MoS issues to be fixed wrt multilnks and the stray ref in the quote box. Jimfbleak 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed a bit I messed up a few days ago, all the issues with style have been addressed, look forward to seeing this as an FA. Jimfbleak 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devonian marine fossils?

The devonian section refers to up to 11 km of sediments of this age divided into upper, middle and lower. It also mentions deposition in fresh water and in lakes. Without access to the two sources provided, I can't see where the marine fossils come in. Offshore marine beds are mainly restricted to the middle old red of the Kyle Group on the northern flank of the Mid North Sea High, while the overlying Buchan Group (upper old red) has only thin marine intercalations at three different levels in an otherwise fluvial sequence. Onshore, as far as I know, there is only local evidence of marine conditions developed very briefly. This information comes from; 'The Millennium Atlas: petroleum geology of the central and northern North Sea', and various publications in journals over the years, but is most clearly summarised in the atlas. The Devonian rocks of Scotland are indeed well known for their fossils, particularly the fish that swam in the Orcadian Lakes. So the question remains, which marine fossils is the text referring to? Mikenorton (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course and I jumped the gun. I think it's fair to say they are not so much 'non-marine' as 'lacustrine'. If you are happy with that I'll make the change. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course we've no way of knowing if any of the fish species were like salmon, able to live in both freshwater and seawater, but we do know that they were at least lacustrine as you say. In actual fact, I think it might be better to say 'a rich source of fish fossils' and leave it at that. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
'Tis done. Thanks for pointing this glitch out. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 07:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)