Geology of the Grand Canyon area is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Mav, re the centre/right thing, I disagree, but not enough to want to argue about it - if we are going to center it, why don't we go the whole way and make it as wide as we can? I know, I know, but the Grand Canyon is perhaps the only page that would really justify this kind of treatment! Mark Richards 20:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I removed this from the Grand Canyon page - I think its all covered here. Wow - there is SO much work to do on this still! Let's go! Mark Richards 19:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The strata, from the bottom to top, are:
* Early Proterozoic Schist and Granite: 1.7 billion years ago o Vishnu Schist * The Earlier Unconformity: 1.7 to 1.25 billion years ago * The Middle and Late Proterozoic Grand Canyon Supergroup: 1250 to 820 million years ago o The Uncar Group o Bass Limestone o Hotauta Conglomerate o Hakatai Shale o Shinumo Quartzite o Dox Sandstone o Cardena Lavas * Nakoweap Formation: 1 billion years ago * The Chuar Group: 950 million years ago * The Sixtymile Formation: 820 million years ago * The Great Unconformity: 820 to 570 million years ago * Paleozoic Sediments: 570 to 245 million years ago * The Cambrian Tonto Group: 570 to 505 million years ago * A Pre-Devonian Unconformity: 505 to 360 million years ago * Devonian Deposits: 408 to 360 million years ago o Devonian River Channels o Temple Butte Formation * The Redwall Limestone: 360 to 320 million years ago o Surprise Canyon Formation * The Supai Group: 320 to 286 million years ago o Watahomigi o Manakacha o Wescogame o Esplanade * The Hermit Shale: 286 to 245 million years ago * Coconino Sandstone * The Toroweap Formation * The Kaibab Formation * Mesozoic Geology: 245 to 66 million years ago o Shinarump Conglomerate o Moenkopi Formation o Chinle Shale o Chinle Formation o Moenave Formation o Kayenta Formation o Navajo Sandstone o Caramel Sandstones o Entrada Sandstones o San Rafael Group o Dakota Sandstone
deine mutter kocht ohne salz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.221.252 ( talk) 08:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Invisible references via the Inote template (see talk page) are now implemented in this article. Your comments appreciated. Mozzerati 21:44, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
These articles suggest that there may be some controversy in the government's stance on the geological age of the grand canyon.
[1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisdab ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
There is certainly scientific uncertainty over the exact age of the Grand Canyon as evidenced by the ongoing research. The NPS Grand Canyon website contains lots of scientifically valid information and I could find no hint of a younger age for the canyon. The statement is made on the website that the canyon is 5-6 million years old and shows new and older rock formations with ages of a few hundred million to billions of years old. I was just at the canyon a few weeks ago. I guess I should have polled the employees for an age estimate :). Desoto10 ( talk) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What about the history of the names given to various layers? Especially, the 'Vishnu Schist', whats the origin of this name? 'JB, 15-May-2007, Australia'
In the section "Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab", there is a photograph with the caption "Fossils, such as this one of a crinoid, are common in the Toroweap and Kaibab formations". The predominant feature in the photo looks like the pedicle valve of a Productid brachiopod. Although there might be some crinozoid stems in the photo, I think the caption should be changed to "Fossils, such as this one of a brachiopod...". Or am I just missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonomadiver@gmail.com ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
From the article "Galeros Formation is a mainly greenish formation composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone, and shale with some shale. It ranges in color from red to purple".
Avihu ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Toroweap Formation is "is a ledge- and cliff-former" and is divided into the following three members: Seligman is a slope-forming, Brady Canyon is a cliff-forming and Wood Ranch is a slope-forming. Two out of three are slope-forming, but the formation as a whole is a ledge- and cliff-former? Avihu ( talk) 18:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "Dams that were 150 to 400 feet (46 to 120 m) high were overtopped by their lakes in 2 to 17 days while dams 200 to 1,000 feet (61 to 300 m) high were overtopped in 22 years. 400 feet dams in just up to 17 days, but 200 feet dams in 22 years? Avihu ( talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "The Bass Limestone was deposited in a shallow sea near the coast as a mix of limestone, sandstone, and shale. It is 120 to 340 feet (37 to 100 m) thick and grayish in color." According the USGS site it contains dolomite and not limestone (contrary to the formation name), it's color is "Red-brown and reddish-gray" and it is "260 to 300 ft" thick. The color and the thickness are just small variations from what is written in the article, but the lithology is not. By the way the elaborate Rock Hounds site also specify dolomite instead of limestone. Avihu ( talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "when thousands of feet of volcanic ash, mud, sand, and silt were laid down in a shallow backarc basin similar to the modern Sea of Japan", this need a bit of clarification. Avihu ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs became a bit confused with lots of edits and use of different refs. Some edits made in an attempt to clear that up a bit. Please take a look. -- mav ( reviews needed) 22:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Grand Canyon Geology by Beus and Morales is considered the "Bible" of geology on Grand Canyon. So any quote from it is significant and it is why it is referenced numerous times in this article. Here is the entire quote.
This is not waffling. This is the way real geologists talk. McKee is a giant among geologist who have studied Grand Canyon and Larry Middleton, David Elliot and Michael Morales, authors of this chapter on the Coconino Sandstone, back up McKee's statement. In fact they say, "few geologists, except for McKee and Reiche, have studied the Coconino." (p. 183) The reason why they stay open as to it being eolian or not is because they cannot find a source for the sand up wind, in the direction from which the sand obviously came. As I said, to not include the statement by McKee gives an inaccurate account of what geologists have to say about the Coconino. You may find some geologists who insist that the Coconino is eolian, but they do not have the experience of McKee and the authors of this book. Lets see the full quotes by Blakey and Kiever and who they quote about the Coconino. (I'll bet they quote Beus and Morales). HerbertHuey ( talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have refs providing evidence of an alternate origin explanation, please provide it. Otherwise the waffle quote is not needed. Vsmith ( talk) 12:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have WP:reliable sources that provide alternate explanations, then simply suggest them here. Do a search on google scholar for the Coconino Sandstone and see what the scientists working on the area say. Vsmith ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
HerbertHuey a sockpuppetBlocked as a sock of Allenroyboy ( talk · contribs). Dougweller ( talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
In this section, a part reads, "thickness of 600 to 700 feet (200 to 200 m)." The metric part needs to be looked up from the original source and updated (I could use conversions to write "(183 to 213 m)", but that doesn't seem like a good change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.232.216 ( talk) 05:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a new stratigraphic column in jpg, pdf, and ai formats in the National Park Services' Grand Canyon National Park Maps.
On the same web page, there are also a number of Grand Canyon National Park maps and their Illustrator print production files. The latter can be custom modified. The maps and their print production files for other national parks can be found at National Parks with Geospatial Maps Listed A to Z. Paul H. ( talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Geology of the Grand Canyon area is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Mav, re the centre/right thing, I disagree, but not enough to want to argue about it - if we are going to center it, why don't we go the whole way and make it as wide as we can? I know, I know, but the Grand Canyon is perhaps the only page that would really justify this kind of treatment! Mark Richards 20:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I removed this from the Grand Canyon page - I think its all covered here. Wow - there is SO much work to do on this still! Let's go! Mark Richards 19:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The strata, from the bottom to top, are:
* Early Proterozoic Schist and Granite: 1.7 billion years ago o Vishnu Schist * The Earlier Unconformity: 1.7 to 1.25 billion years ago * The Middle and Late Proterozoic Grand Canyon Supergroup: 1250 to 820 million years ago o The Uncar Group o Bass Limestone o Hotauta Conglomerate o Hakatai Shale o Shinumo Quartzite o Dox Sandstone o Cardena Lavas * Nakoweap Formation: 1 billion years ago * The Chuar Group: 950 million years ago * The Sixtymile Formation: 820 million years ago * The Great Unconformity: 820 to 570 million years ago * Paleozoic Sediments: 570 to 245 million years ago * The Cambrian Tonto Group: 570 to 505 million years ago * A Pre-Devonian Unconformity: 505 to 360 million years ago * Devonian Deposits: 408 to 360 million years ago o Devonian River Channels o Temple Butte Formation * The Redwall Limestone: 360 to 320 million years ago o Surprise Canyon Formation * The Supai Group: 320 to 286 million years ago o Watahomigi o Manakacha o Wescogame o Esplanade * The Hermit Shale: 286 to 245 million years ago * Coconino Sandstone * The Toroweap Formation * The Kaibab Formation * Mesozoic Geology: 245 to 66 million years ago o Shinarump Conglomerate o Moenkopi Formation o Chinle Shale o Chinle Formation o Moenave Formation o Kayenta Formation o Navajo Sandstone o Caramel Sandstones o Entrada Sandstones o San Rafael Group o Dakota Sandstone
deine mutter kocht ohne salz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.221.252 ( talk) 08:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Invisible references via the Inote template (see talk page) are now implemented in this article. Your comments appreciated. Mozzerati 21:44, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
These articles suggest that there may be some controversy in the government's stance on the geological age of the grand canyon.
[1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisdab ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
There is certainly scientific uncertainty over the exact age of the Grand Canyon as evidenced by the ongoing research. The NPS Grand Canyon website contains lots of scientifically valid information and I could find no hint of a younger age for the canyon. The statement is made on the website that the canyon is 5-6 million years old and shows new and older rock formations with ages of a few hundred million to billions of years old. I was just at the canyon a few weeks ago. I guess I should have polled the employees for an age estimate :). Desoto10 ( talk) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What about the history of the names given to various layers? Especially, the 'Vishnu Schist', whats the origin of this name? 'JB, 15-May-2007, Australia'
In the section "Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab", there is a photograph with the caption "Fossils, such as this one of a crinoid, are common in the Toroweap and Kaibab formations". The predominant feature in the photo looks like the pedicle valve of a Productid brachiopod. Although there might be some crinozoid stems in the photo, I think the caption should be changed to "Fossils, such as this one of a brachiopod...". Or am I just missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonomadiver@gmail.com ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
From the article "Galeros Formation is a mainly greenish formation composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone, and shale with some shale. It ranges in color from red to purple".
Avihu ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Toroweap Formation is "is a ledge- and cliff-former" and is divided into the following three members: Seligman is a slope-forming, Brady Canyon is a cliff-forming and Wood Ranch is a slope-forming. Two out of three are slope-forming, but the formation as a whole is a ledge- and cliff-former? Avihu ( talk) 18:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "Dams that were 150 to 400 feet (46 to 120 m) high were overtopped by their lakes in 2 to 17 days while dams 200 to 1,000 feet (61 to 300 m) high were overtopped in 22 years. 400 feet dams in just up to 17 days, but 200 feet dams in 22 years? Avihu ( talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "The Bass Limestone was deposited in a shallow sea near the coast as a mix of limestone, sandstone, and shale. It is 120 to 340 feet (37 to 100 m) thick and grayish in color." According the USGS site it contains dolomite and not limestone (contrary to the formation name), it's color is "Red-brown and reddish-gray" and it is "260 to 300 ft" thick. The color and the thickness are just small variations from what is written in the article, but the lithology is not. By the way the elaborate Rock Hounds site also specify dolomite instead of limestone. Avihu ( talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article "when thousands of feet of volcanic ash, mud, sand, and silt were laid down in a shallow backarc basin similar to the modern Sea of Japan", this need a bit of clarification. Avihu ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs became a bit confused with lots of edits and use of different refs. Some edits made in an attempt to clear that up a bit. Please take a look. -- mav ( reviews needed) 22:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Grand Canyon Geology by Beus and Morales is considered the "Bible" of geology on Grand Canyon. So any quote from it is significant and it is why it is referenced numerous times in this article. Here is the entire quote.
This is not waffling. This is the way real geologists talk. McKee is a giant among geologist who have studied Grand Canyon and Larry Middleton, David Elliot and Michael Morales, authors of this chapter on the Coconino Sandstone, back up McKee's statement. In fact they say, "few geologists, except for McKee and Reiche, have studied the Coconino." (p. 183) The reason why they stay open as to it being eolian or not is because they cannot find a source for the sand up wind, in the direction from which the sand obviously came. As I said, to not include the statement by McKee gives an inaccurate account of what geologists have to say about the Coconino. You may find some geologists who insist that the Coconino is eolian, but they do not have the experience of McKee and the authors of this book. Lets see the full quotes by Blakey and Kiever and who they quote about the Coconino. (I'll bet they quote Beus and Morales). HerbertHuey ( talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have refs providing evidence of an alternate origin explanation, please provide it. Otherwise the waffle quote is not needed. Vsmith ( talk) 12:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have WP:reliable sources that provide alternate explanations, then simply suggest them here. Do a search on google scholar for the Coconino Sandstone and see what the scientists working on the area say. Vsmith ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
HerbertHuey a sockpuppetBlocked as a sock of Allenroyboy ( talk · contribs). Dougweller ( talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
In this section, a part reads, "thickness of 600 to 700 feet (200 to 200 m)." The metric part needs to be looked up from the original source and updated (I could use conversions to write "(183 to 213 m)", but that doesn't seem like a good change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.232.216 ( talk) 05:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a new stratigraphic column in jpg, pdf, and ai formats in the National Park Services' Grand Canyon National Park Maps.
On the same web page, there are also a number of Grand Canyon National Park maps and their Illustrator print production files. The latter can be custom modified. The maps and their print production files for other national parks can be found at National Parks with Geospatial Maps Listed A to Z. Paul H. ( talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)