Self nom. This article has been on peer review for a while now and I've fixed most of the issues brought up there. So what else needs to be done? Note: I already plan to take close up photos of each formation during my trip to the Grand Canyon this summer and later add those photos to this article. --mav 22:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks pretty fantastic to me. A few really great illustrations, especially the cross-section. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A short introductory paragraph for section 1 would be nice. It might be useful to make the relation between the subsections and the figure clear in the text (not only in the caption). Also, I'm not sure every reader will understand that "group" has a special meaning in geology. If so, a short intro would be the place to define it. Finally, is there any reason the cross section picture is not under section 1. From what I can see using "Preview", putting it under that section would not break layout, and it would probably make sense. Phils 10:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! An intro para for section 1 is a good idea. Concepts like groups, supergroups, formations, members, and the various kinds of unconformities are all already parenthetically explained inline the first time each of those concepts are introduced in the article. But putting those in a quick intro is a better idea - and I’ll do that later. I’m not exactly sure how I could make the connection between the figure and the text clearer than having the current inline refs to the figure such as (see 3b in figure 1), but a mention in the section 1 intro may help. Hm, inline links such as (see 3b in figure 1) may make it clearer still (that image description page could then have further explanation). The cross section picture is where it is in order to give room for photos and/or other illustrations that would be specific to the sub-section (such as having a close-up photo of the rock unit being talked about and, if room, an illustration of what the continent looked like and where it was on the globe when that sediment was deposited). --mav 13:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Intro created as well as other fixes per above. --mav 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent overall, keep them coming. The beginning of the intro is a little tough though, esepcially for someone that doesn't know geology. What is a column? I guess the first sentence tells what the subject is, but world renowned seems like gratuitous peacock language, and makes the real meaning of the sentence less accessible. I think if you add some context for column, and time progession, and NPOV that a bit, or at least rework the structure of the first sentence it would be much stronger. - Taxman 14:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Lead section expanded a tiny bit to be less dense and hopefully more accessible. Got rid of 'geologic column' and 'world renowned'. --mav 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, excellent, though if geographic column is more accurate or useful in some way, it could be put back in with some careful context. Either way, how it is now is good. - Taxman 19:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My god, those pictures! I really have to get back there... Meelar (talk) 02:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Extraordinary. I strongly support. Hydriotaphia 03:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Question/Object looks like a great article, but, a) I see the diagram comes from a display the visitor's center. I think that it qualifies as their copyright and would question whether it is covered under fair use: does it come under US.Govt PD or is it from a non-governmental s ource? b) could you please make it easy to work out which bit of the text is covered by which reference, using, for example "invisible references" or footnotes to aid in verification. Mozzerati 07:03, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
- a) Even if the display were not a work commissioned by the United States government and therefore eligible for copyright protection, under what provision of U.S. copyright law would a two-dimensional representation of a three dimensional object be a derivative work that would be hindered by the 3D object's original copyright? Such a hindered derivative work would certainly be created if a three-dimensional work were copied from a copyright-protected three-dimensional work, but that is not the case here. I know for a fact that photographs of buildings are not hindered by architectural copyrights but I'm not aware of similar provisions one way or the other for statues and other three-dimensional works of art. b) I'm not going to use any hacked template-based reference system (I tried this at helium with very bad results due to the fact that I have so many references and so many of those refer to the same reference and same page). The HTML commented out citations are just a temporary solution until a real referencing system is in place. For now I’ve mentioned that the source text has these citations. --mav 16:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- a) there are differences from a building due to the function of a display; I'd like to discuss further... Do you know of any previous policy discussion on this. b) apologies; I really did go into edit mode and look for the refs but didn't see them. Your solution, whilst not so good for the normal user, is acceptable to me. BTW, there is a manually numbered footnote system (mn/mnb templates)
but it doesn't seem to work right now (probably a wikimedia bug?), When that is fixed, doing something like helium should be no problem. b2) I like your idea for making commented out notes visible by mentioning them in the references section. Mozzerati 19:05, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
- Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)