![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Geology of Dorset was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 2, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the county of
Dorset in England has
one of the most studied coastlines in the world? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Lack of citations. Needs a lot of improvements. Sushant gupta 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the Dorset WikiProject's assessment values of this article, from 'B'/'Mid' to 'C'/'High'. An article covering something as fundamental as the geology of the whole county really should be of high importance (for comparison, I notice the Somerset WikiProject places Geology of Somerset as of 'Top' importance in their assessments), and I don't think this article is of sufficient length nor quality to warrant a 'B' rating (in fact as it stands, I think this article's subject matter is more like the physical geography of Dorset rather than the geology - it needs quite a lot of work). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pterre - nice to see someone's out there! I confess that I hadn't read your previous exchange with Graeme Bartlett, and having now done so, I'm now unsure as to the best route forward (having just decided to make Geology of Dorset a 'High' importance article). I can understand your point about county geology articles in general, although I also think that they could provide the general reader with a good entrance to the topics involved. People tend to identify themselves with areas which have human cultural significance, rather than geological significance. Hence many people will proudly state "I come from Dorset", but rather fewer would claim "I come from the Hampshire Basin". This might seem as if I'm being facetious, but there is a serious point, which is that I think people with no particular interest in geology might actually be prepared to read about it, if it refers to an area which they identify with. As a consequence, I would favour trying to expand the article, although obviously there may be quite a few "Main article: etc." posted throughout. Unfortunately my own knowledge is insufficient to edit the article with any confidence, although considering that "Dorset has a lot of geology" as you say, I wonder if it's worth trying to coax someone else from the Geology WikiProject to have a look at it? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Geology and physical geography are different but connected. Geology looks more at the actual rocks: how they are formed, how old they are, how the different strata relate to each other in layers and folds etc., whereas physical geography (at least part of it) looks at landscapes, and the forces and processes which produce them. Therefore the geology of an area is an important component of its physical geography. I'm still thinking about what could be the best way to proceed. I am wondering if Pterre might actually be right in questioning these kinds of article, not because I think having an article called 'Geology of Dorset' is wrong in principle, but because in practice in the context of a wider encyclopedia, the text might be repeating what's written in other articles. I actually think that the geology of Dorset is really interesting, and there's potentially a lot that could be written, but consideration has to be paid to all the other geological articles, some of which already deal with formations that occur in Dorset (e.g. Oxford Clay, Corallian Limestone etc.) Maybe it would be a better idea to have 'Geology of Dorset' (I still think it's worth having it as an article) as a relatively brief overview of the formations within the county, with lots of links to other more detailed articles, and then creating a new article called 'Physical geography of Dorset' which could deal with the landforms/landscapes as they are uniquely found within the county. This latter article could actually be really large, and might be the one worthy of the 'High' importance rating, whereas if the 'Geology' article is kept relatively brief, perhaps that indeed should be a 'Mid' rating? (Or an alternative way to execute this would be to re-name this article as 'Physical geography of Dorset' and then expand it, and then create a new 'Geology of Dorset' article on the lines outlined above..) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am amenable to renaming and expanding this article, although as someone who studied geography (albeit about 25 years ago...), I'm not comfortable with calling it just 'Geography of Dorset', as that would be potentially an enormous article and I think the intention here is really only to cover the physical geography aspects (see Human geography and Physical geography to understand where I'm coming from on this). I do understand however that for many people, "geography" probably just means physical geography, and "physical geography" is an unfamiliar term, so it is not a straightforward issue. Before proceeding, I think it would be good to have some input from other contributors on this matter. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If article is to remain (and I accept there may be reasons for that), we need to lose the stuff about arable agriculture, dairy farms, county flower competitions, varying habitats etc. This is clearly not geology. "What makes Dorset's coast particularly important to geologists though are the series of landforms which occur so close together, on the concordant and discordant coastlines." Really? Not the exposure of miles of fossiliferous cliffs then? More on the economic geology, on the structure (monoclinal folding? basins?) etc. Pterre ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC) For example I note that there is an article for Purbeck Monocline, but this feature does not even get a mention. Pterre ( talk) 09:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I've dug out some references (Arkell's 1947 Memoir of the geology of the country around weymouth, Swanage, Corfe & Lulworth"; a 1982 ed of BGS,s regional geology 'The Hampshire Basin and adjoining areas'; MR House's 1969 "The Dorset Coast from Poole to the Chesil Beach"), but I have nothing very recent. Ideally it needs someone with access to current thinking on the structure. Pterre ( talk) 09:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus, which is good - it's pleasing when this is achieved as a result of bouncing ideas off other's comments. I like Geopersona's description of the 2 articles as siblings - I think they could complement each other well. If no-one objects, I'll try to at least make a start on the basic structure of the Geography article within the next few days or so, and begin removing stuff from the Geology article as well - though if anyone wants to remove stuff themselves now, please feel free (I can always retrieve the old saved page if I want any of its contents for the Geography article). I think the expansion of the Geology article would really benefit from a contributor with more expertise than myself. I think Graeme Bartlett has described some interesting topics which could be included (though I'm not trying here to conscript Graeme into doing the job!) - I wouldn't have thought of topics such as institutions and notable geologists from the area. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would help the reader if the years matched up to the period/epoch names in each section title. Some have changed since the article was put together, others predated the article being put together. Having the Pal(a)eogene start at 66 and the Quaternary at 2.6 million years ago for instance would cause less confusion. There is of course the issue of some formations and groups extending across such boundaries so I haven't immediately made the change in case there are extenuating circumstances. cheers Geopersona ( talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Geopersona: @ Ykraps: My suggestion is that we replace the existing sections/sub-sections with:
Devonian (mention the Variscan)
Triassic (maybe include Permian?)
Uppermost Triassic to Jurassic
Lower Lias
Middle Lias
Upper Lias
Inferior Oolite
Great Oolite (with the Cornbrash added from the next sub-section)
Ancholme Group (minus the Cornbrash)
Kimmeridge Clay
Portland Group
Uppermost Jurassic to Cretaceous
Purbeck Group
Wealden Group
Lower Greensand & Selborne groups
Chalk Group
Paleogene
Neogene
Quaternary
The "Uppermost Triassic to Jurassic" may seem a bit unwieldy but most of the Lower Lias is Jurassic and it looks a bit odd in the Triassic - the same goes for the Purbeck Group, which is mainly Cretaceous. The only bit that needs moving is the Cornbrash, but I don't think that's an issue - thoughts? Mikenorton ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Geopersona: I've been going through the various subsections trying to replace all the dates with stratigraphic ages. I've reached the Kimmeridge Clay but I am a bit mystified about the 140 to 145 Mya currently used in that section, which matches the lowermost Cretaceous Berriasian, whereas the BGS give Kimmeridgian as the age (understandably, although the British definition has changed with time). The overlying Portland Group is Tithonian, so I would have expected the date range to be about 157 to 152 Mya. What does Ensom say? Mikenorton ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Geology of Dorset was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 2, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the county of
Dorset in England has
one of the most studied coastlines in the world? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Lack of citations. Needs a lot of improvements. Sushant gupta 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the Dorset WikiProject's assessment values of this article, from 'B'/'Mid' to 'C'/'High'. An article covering something as fundamental as the geology of the whole county really should be of high importance (for comparison, I notice the Somerset WikiProject places Geology of Somerset as of 'Top' importance in their assessments), and I don't think this article is of sufficient length nor quality to warrant a 'B' rating (in fact as it stands, I think this article's subject matter is more like the physical geography of Dorset rather than the geology - it needs quite a lot of work). PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pterre - nice to see someone's out there! I confess that I hadn't read your previous exchange with Graeme Bartlett, and having now done so, I'm now unsure as to the best route forward (having just decided to make Geology of Dorset a 'High' importance article). I can understand your point about county geology articles in general, although I also think that they could provide the general reader with a good entrance to the topics involved. People tend to identify themselves with areas which have human cultural significance, rather than geological significance. Hence many people will proudly state "I come from Dorset", but rather fewer would claim "I come from the Hampshire Basin". This might seem as if I'm being facetious, but there is a serious point, which is that I think people with no particular interest in geology might actually be prepared to read about it, if it refers to an area which they identify with. As a consequence, I would favour trying to expand the article, although obviously there may be quite a few "Main article: etc." posted throughout. Unfortunately my own knowledge is insufficient to edit the article with any confidence, although considering that "Dorset has a lot of geology" as you say, I wonder if it's worth trying to coax someone else from the Geology WikiProject to have a look at it? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Geology and physical geography are different but connected. Geology looks more at the actual rocks: how they are formed, how old they are, how the different strata relate to each other in layers and folds etc., whereas physical geography (at least part of it) looks at landscapes, and the forces and processes which produce them. Therefore the geology of an area is an important component of its physical geography. I'm still thinking about what could be the best way to proceed. I am wondering if Pterre might actually be right in questioning these kinds of article, not because I think having an article called 'Geology of Dorset' is wrong in principle, but because in practice in the context of a wider encyclopedia, the text might be repeating what's written in other articles. I actually think that the geology of Dorset is really interesting, and there's potentially a lot that could be written, but consideration has to be paid to all the other geological articles, some of which already deal with formations that occur in Dorset (e.g. Oxford Clay, Corallian Limestone etc.) Maybe it would be a better idea to have 'Geology of Dorset' (I still think it's worth having it as an article) as a relatively brief overview of the formations within the county, with lots of links to other more detailed articles, and then creating a new article called 'Physical geography of Dorset' which could deal with the landforms/landscapes as they are uniquely found within the county. This latter article could actually be really large, and might be the one worthy of the 'High' importance rating, whereas if the 'Geology' article is kept relatively brief, perhaps that indeed should be a 'Mid' rating? (Or an alternative way to execute this would be to re-name this article as 'Physical geography of Dorset' and then expand it, and then create a new 'Geology of Dorset' article on the lines outlined above..) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am amenable to renaming and expanding this article, although as someone who studied geography (albeit about 25 years ago...), I'm not comfortable with calling it just 'Geography of Dorset', as that would be potentially an enormous article and I think the intention here is really only to cover the physical geography aspects (see Human geography and Physical geography to understand where I'm coming from on this). I do understand however that for many people, "geography" probably just means physical geography, and "physical geography" is an unfamiliar term, so it is not a straightforward issue. Before proceeding, I think it would be good to have some input from other contributors on this matter. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If article is to remain (and I accept there may be reasons for that), we need to lose the stuff about arable agriculture, dairy farms, county flower competitions, varying habitats etc. This is clearly not geology. "What makes Dorset's coast particularly important to geologists though are the series of landforms which occur so close together, on the concordant and discordant coastlines." Really? Not the exposure of miles of fossiliferous cliffs then? More on the economic geology, on the structure (monoclinal folding? basins?) etc. Pterre ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC) For example I note that there is an article for Purbeck Monocline, but this feature does not even get a mention. Pterre ( talk) 09:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I've dug out some references (Arkell's 1947 Memoir of the geology of the country around weymouth, Swanage, Corfe & Lulworth"; a 1982 ed of BGS,s regional geology 'The Hampshire Basin and adjoining areas'; MR House's 1969 "The Dorset Coast from Poole to the Chesil Beach"), but I have nothing very recent. Ideally it needs someone with access to current thinking on the structure. Pterre ( talk) 09:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus, which is good - it's pleasing when this is achieved as a result of bouncing ideas off other's comments. I like Geopersona's description of the 2 articles as siblings - I think they could complement each other well. If no-one objects, I'll try to at least make a start on the basic structure of the Geography article within the next few days or so, and begin removing stuff from the Geology article as well - though if anyone wants to remove stuff themselves now, please feel free (I can always retrieve the old saved page if I want any of its contents for the Geography article). I think the expansion of the Geology article would really benefit from a contributor with more expertise than myself. I think Graeme Bartlett has described some interesting topics which could be included (though I'm not trying here to conscript Graeme into doing the job!) - I wouldn't have thought of topics such as institutions and notable geologists from the area. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would help the reader if the years matched up to the period/epoch names in each section title. Some have changed since the article was put together, others predated the article being put together. Having the Pal(a)eogene start at 66 and the Quaternary at 2.6 million years ago for instance would cause less confusion. There is of course the issue of some formations and groups extending across such boundaries so I haven't immediately made the change in case there are extenuating circumstances. cheers Geopersona ( talk) 12:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Geopersona: @ Ykraps: My suggestion is that we replace the existing sections/sub-sections with:
Devonian (mention the Variscan)
Triassic (maybe include Permian?)
Uppermost Triassic to Jurassic
Lower Lias
Middle Lias
Upper Lias
Inferior Oolite
Great Oolite (with the Cornbrash added from the next sub-section)
Ancholme Group (minus the Cornbrash)
Kimmeridge Clay
Portland Group
Uppermost Jurassic to Cretaceous
Purbeck Group
Wealden Group
Lower Greensand & Selborne groups
Chalk Group
Paleogene
Neogene
Quaternary
The "Uppermost Triassic to Jurassic" may seem a bit unwieldy but most of the Lower Lias is Jurassic and it looks a bit odd in the Triassic - the same goes for the Purbeck Group, which is mainly Cretaceous. The only bit that needs moving is the Cornbrash, but I don't think that's an issue - thoughts? Mikenorton ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Geopersona: I've been going through the various subsections trying to replace all the dates with stratigraphic ages. I've reached the Kimmeridge Clay but I am a bit mystified about the 140 to 145 Mya currently used in that section, which matches the lowermost Cretaceous Berriasian, whereas the BGS give Kimmeridgian as the age (understandably, although the British definition has changed with time). The overlying Portland Group is Tithonian, so I would have expected the date range to be about 157 to 152 Mya. What does Ensom say? Mikenorton ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)