Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Day Fossil Beds National Monument/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:41, 13 October 2011 [1].

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon is a place that did not exist until fairly recently, geologically speaking. The Pacific Ocean lapped at the shores of what now is called Idaho until tectonic plate movements added new land to the North American continent. So young is Oregon that it lacks fossils of the dinosaurs that lived in Idaho and further east until they collectively met their demise about 65 million years ago. On the other hand, the mammals that succeeded the dinosaurs flourished in Oregon, and the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has the evidence to prove it. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria, and I thank peer reviewers Brianboulton, Ruhrfisch, and Wehwalt for helping make it so. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review, deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The geology and paleontology section lists quite a few examples—Patriofelis, broadleaf plants, mastodons, horses—from different time periods. What is missing? If you mean information about individual fossils, I don't know of any that stand out above the others. I'm open to suggestion though. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples, yes, but what is missing is the whole picture. What were the paleocommunities like? How do the John Day faunas compare to other contemporaneous faunas? Are all the fossil faunas the result of volcanic deposition? (For example, localities in the John Day Basin have yielded the only North American record of a rodent similar to the European fossil Deperetomys, and the first North American records of modern beavers, Castor. I'm not saying that those should necessarily be included in the article, but those are the kinds of things the article should cover.) Ucucha (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, and I will give this some thought. It's not clear to me at the moment just how to handle this. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I don't feel the article is comprehensive yet (see above). I'll see whether I can point you to some good sources, but I don't know very much about North American paleontology. Ucucha (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think what we have here is a difference of opinion about audience. I've chosen to write an article about a park that ordinary people visit for its scenic attractions, its relatively easy and lovely hikes, and its paleontological and cultural museums. While I love science and the idea that ordinary people can learn something about it by visiting the park and by reading this article, I don't think what's needed here is a more heavy emphasis on the science. I could add more about the paleosols and the paleoclimates, but too much of this might put ordinary readers to sleep. If the audience consisted solely of biologists, that would be a different matter, and you would no doubt be a better choice of author than I. If you have specific information that you think should be included in the article, I'd be glad to consider it. Otherwise, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Finetooth (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to meet you in the middle or thereabouts, I've added a note (diff) giving an overview of the significance of the beds to science. In compact form, it addresses the questions of the beds' relative global importance, the variations among the paleocommunities, and the nature of the deposition (largely volcaniclastic) that you mention above. Do you think this is sufficient? Finetooth (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step in the right direction, to be sure. You have chosen to write an article on an area that is an important paleontological site, and such an article should cover the paleontology well. Samuels and Zancanella (2011, doi:10.1666/11-016.1), for example write that Hemphillian faunas in Oregon, including the Rattlesnake Formation in the John Day Monument, include some of the first records of immigrants into North America, such as beavers (Castor), bears (Indarctos), grisons (Lutravus), and lesser pandas (Simocyon). That's the kind of information the article should cover. On the other hand, it might be difficult to cover this without sources that summarize the paleontology well... I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fremd, who was the chief paleontologist at the monument for many years, says, "... the Clarno Formation includes significant Pacific Northwest Bridgerian North American Land Mammal Age (NALMA) assemblages; the John Day Formation has yielded excellent material representing over thirty mammalian families and well over one hundred species of Whitneyan through late Arikareean NALMA taxa; the Mascall Formation represents an important early Barstovian (proposed "Mascallian") interval; and the Rattlesnake Formation is a recognized principal correlate of the Hemphillian NALMA." This kind of stuff resists translation to pedestrian English, though perhaps I should mention the beavers since Oregon is the Beaver State. While the monument does include many fossils, the area of paleontological interest extends well beyond the area lying within the monument. Would you be open to the idea that this is an article about the park and that the article you are thinking of is a separate and more technical one, yet to be written, focusing on the wider area? Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There would certainly be place for a more detailed treatment of the fossils in a different article, but that doesn't mean the treatment in this article is sufficient. (By the way, your recent additions to the John Day Formation article seem to be confusing the Formation with the John Day Group, which is apparently a larger stratigraphical unit that includes the John Day Formation and several other units.) The text you give becomes more comprehensible once you understand that all the -ians are just slices of time (North American Land Mammal Ages, in this case). Ucucha (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed mention of the John Day Group. I'm sorry we don't agree about the level of paleontological detail needed here, but we don't. Finetooth (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, I never noticed the redirect, but I see that it was created in 2006. Should it be removed? I tried removing the text, but that leaves an article title connected to nothing. I'm not sure how to fix the problem. Finetooth (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either the redirect can be deleted, or a separate article should be created. Ucucha (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a separate article, which is more interesting and will be more useful to the encyclopedia than simply deleting the redirect. I blame the lateness of the hour for not thinking of this last night. I'll see what I can do and post a further note here later. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created a stub article, John Day Formation. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Ucucha (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of disagreements on other matters, I have a few smaller comments:

  • "The Clarno volcanoes subsided by the early Oligocene but were replaced about 36 million years ago"—the Oligocene started 34 million years ago.
The source, Geology of Oregon says, "By early Oligocene time the Clarno volcanic episode had subsided to be replaced by eruptions of a new complexion in the John Day period about 36 million years ago. Only a brief interval of erosion separates the two events." I've recast the sentence to say, "After the Clarno volcanoes had subsided, they were replaced about 36 million years ago by eruptions from volcanoes to the west... " Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list "swine" among the mammals found in the John Day Formation, but pigs (Suidae) never occurred in North America. Do you mean peccaries instead?
The source says "swine", but I think it likely that you are right and that the Park Service source is wrong. I'm not sure what the source means by "swine", so I've deleted the term. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for "antelope"; that's a term that sometimes refers to the pronghorn of North America, and perhaps also to its extinct relatives, but is more usually limited to a group of bovids that never occurred outside of the Old World.
The source, in this case Geology of Oregon, says "antelope", and again I feel certain that you are correct and that the source is wrong. I have deleted "antelope" from the list of examples. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these three and for the proofing changes. I made corresponding changes to the text of John Day Formation. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It looks to me like this article satisfies all the criteria. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was also involved in the peer review and feel this more than meets the FA criteria. If you want I can delete the John Day Formation redirect - could it also be converted into a stub? Here is a USGS ref on the formation. I have a few quibbles which do not detract from my support.

Thanks. I like the idea of a stub, and I'll see what I can do along those lines. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a link to Boise in By the late 1860s, the route became formalized as the The Dalles–Boise Military Road, which passed along Bridge Creek and south of Sheep Rock.?
Yes. Linked. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a link to University of California in By the late 1860s, the route became formalized as the The Dalles–Boise Military Road, which passed along Bridge Creek and south of Sheep Rock.?
Linked. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the visitor center telephone number in Activities is needed - this a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue (Wikipedia is not a telephone directory)
Quite right. Removed. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done and beautifully illustrated. Image review to follow, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All of the images used in the article are free, either because they are the work of Wikipedians, or the US federal government, or in case is old enough to be out of copyright. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the image review and for your kind words about the images. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed and I think this article satisfies the FA criteria. Good work! Regards, 19:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)RJH (talk)
Comments—Overall this is a good article and one that I consider close to FA worthy. However, there were a few small points that came up while I was reading the content:

  • There's a pair of sentences in the lead that appear to be missing articles:
    "...U.S. National Monument in [the] Wheeler and Grant counties in east-central Oregon."
The phrase as it stands sounds right to me. I think it would sound strange with an added "the". I would not write "U.S. National Monument in the Wheeler County", for example. I don't think the plural makes any difference in this way. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. After a little investigating, counties are not one of the exceptions where 'the' is used with geographical names. I'll mark it as done. RJH (talk)
  • "...the John Day basin was frequented by [the] Sahaptin people who hunted, ..."
This one is more subtle, but adding "the", it seems to me, is not an improvement. It adds an extra word and slightly distorts the meaning. Not all of the Sahaptin people frequented the basin, just some. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. RJH (talk)
  • "...recognized their importance and soon made them widely known..." How soon? How widely? This seems vague.
Quite right. I deleted "soon" and "widely". I replaced "in the United States and abroad" with "globally". Finetooth (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in the statement "As early as the 18th century and probably earlier, ..." could be improved. Is it saying how long there were there, or when they were last there? The word "early" depends on the reader's perspective; it could just as easily have said "As late as the 18th century..." and meant the same thing.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I don't agree that "early" and "late" mean the same thing. The reader's perspective is from the 21st century looking back. The sources are vague about exact dates, most likely because the dates are unknown. How would researchers know what the Sahaptin peoples were doing in 1500 or 500, for example, since the tribes did not leave the kinds of historical records kept by Europeans? Finetooth (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well I still have a concern with your wording. Your intended meaning appears to be that the date range is when they were most recently known to settle in the location, which to me means the same as "as late as". But another interpretation of "As early as" is that they first appeared there at that time. "I'll be there as early as 7 am" doesn't mean I'll be there at 7 am or before. To me it's just vague and potentially ambiguous. RJH (talk)
Since no one seems to know the precise dates of the range, I have reworded to say, "Early inhabitants of north-central Oregon included Sahaptin-speaking people of the Umatilla, Wasco, and Warm Springs tribes as well as the Northern Paiutes, speakers of a Uzo-Aztecan (Shoshonean) language." Is that OK? Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is fine. Thank you. RJH (talk)
  • "Researchers have identified 36 sites of archeological interest..." needs a word to connect the topic to the first part of the paragraph. Perhaps "...of related archeological interest..."?
Added "related". Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it is thought to be..." may be WP:WEASEL.
Deleted "is thought to be". The basic vagueness here reflects the vagueness of the two sources, which do not give exact numbers. However, "is thought to be" is probably overkill on my part. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Edward Drinker Cope of the Academy of Natural Sciences and paleontologist Othneil C. Marsh of Yale, who accompanied Condon on a trip to the region in 1871." This is ambiguous about whether Marsh alone, or both Cope and Marsh, accompanied Condon.
Good catch. I have recast this as two separate sentences to make clear that only Marsh went on the trip. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following two sentences seem somewhat off topic for the paragraph on soil types: "Volcanic tuffs and claystones that lack essential nutrients support few microorganisms and plants. Likewise, hard rock surfaces and steep slopes from which soils wash or blow away tend to remain bare." No need to delete them, but perhaps they can be relocated?
I think the paragraph flows nicely as is and that the two sentences fit just fine. They describe the kinds of soils that do not support much in the way of flora. The following sentence says, "In other soils, plant communities flourish." Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I see that bare rock does not qualify as a soil type. I've taken your advice and relocated the two sentences to the end of the paragraph with a short lead-in to maintain the prose flow. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that begins "The Park Service is considering controlled burning..." may be more appropriate at the end of the next paragraph.
Moved the sentence as you suggested. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the capitalization of some animal species names; that may need to be checked. For example, why is "Northern pikeminnow" capitalized but not "redside shiners"? Most book sources use "northern pikeminnow".
Good point. I have now lower-cased "northern" and all similar words that do not begin a sentence. The birds are the exception, per MOS:CAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, RJH (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insightful comments and the proofing changes you made to the article. I agree with many most of your suggestions but not all, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RJH, for your helpful suggestions, kind words, and support. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. I'm glad you like it. Finetooth (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was one of the peer reviewers for this article, and my various points were addressed to my satisfaction there. I note Ucucha's objection registered above; on balance I agree with Finetooth's rationale, and I trust that the difference in view between them can be swiftly resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, peer review, and kind words. Finetooth (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how chapters are notated in shortened citations
  • Be consistent in whether you include et al in DeRooey citations
  • FN 64: page formatting
  • FN 65: what kind of source is this?
  • Seattle, Washington or just Seattle? Portland, Oregon or just Portland? Be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I believe I have now corrected all of these glitches. Finetooth (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've a long history of following Park FAs (several of MAVs Park/Geology FAs appeared at FAR, and I also followed Saravask's Chaco Culture National Historical Park); I do believe that Ucucha's oppose needs to be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I see no prospect of researching the paleontology in depth any time soon. Perhaps it would be best to withdraw the nomination if it cannot pass in its present state. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Day_Fossil_Beds_National_Monument/archive1&oldid=1138464696"