Talk:Norwich Crag Formation

+Comprehensive revision

Hello fellow editors. Thinking particularly of @Geopersona: and @Dudley Miles:, I propose a thorough revision of Norwich Crag Formation Wikipedia entry, and have drafted a new entry. It will subsume the contents of the existing entry, expand them, introduce new headings, will be referenced and will include pictures.
Do you have any comments before I upload the material? I am not sure how I can show you a preview. Tall-timothy (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you have put it in User:Tall-timothy/sandbox. I will take a look but it will take me a few days to get round to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see it until now - looks like a thoroughly useful overhaul. cheersGeopersona (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read it but even skimming through it is clear it is a vast improvement. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am reading through and will add points as I go.

• The standard - but not compulsory - Wikipedia format is that all the content should be in the referenced main text, and the lead should be an unreferenced summary of the main points.

I will redraft with reference to the original lead paragraphs. One of the problems I have is that the bit about the cooling trend identified by Harmer ('this trend was superimposed on oscillations of climate') is misleading. Tall-timothy (talk)

• You have three terms in paragraph two, "with discontinuity" I take to mean "in some places", and if so I think the latter term would be clearer. I have linked "uncomformably", but how does it differ from "disconformably"?

This paragraph is taken from the standard description of the NCF given in the BGS Lexicon [1], and I thought fit to transcribe and reference it. Of course if we cannot use references in the lead section then I shall have to shift this information. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "Bure valley" it would be helpful to give a location which can be linked. "valley of the River Bure"?

Yes, a wikilink now inserted. Tall-timothy (talk)

• " was later formalised by FW Harmer" - "was formalised by FW Harmer in 1902"?

I see I have made a mistake here about the role of Harmer and will rewrite. Tall-timothy (talk)

• " locally shelly sands" What does "locally" mean in this context?

I am trying to be concise. It means 'shelly in places'.

• " fluviatile" Why not the more common "fluvial"?

Point taken. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "the sand fraction" This obviously refers to the quartz and quartzite, but it would be helpful to explain this.

Altered for clarity '... sand-sized fraction of the sediment ...'. Tall-timothy (talk)

• Why do the GSL and BGS recognise different members for lithostratigraphic and mapping purposes?

God knows why. It's one of those silly things. I think best to mention both schemes without passing judgement, letting readers spot the discrepancy and come to their own conclusions! Tall-timothy (talk)

• "It is conjectured that at c.2.4 million years BP the North Sea coastline lay across east Norfolk and east Suffolk, with a continuation eastwards to Holland". If I understand correctly, this would have been the north coast of the Weald–Artois Anticline, which permanently connected Britain to the Continent until it was destroyed by the Anglian Glaciation. If so, it would be helpful to explain this, perhaps in a note.

Good point. I considered an explanatory map would be good here but difficult to source one through WikiMedia Commons.

• "during a sea-level high-stand c.2 million years ago" Why not "during a period of high sea levels around two million years ago"?

Yes, OK. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "The coastline retreated north-eastwards to a position in north-east Norfolk by about 1.75 million years BP." If it was moving north-east was it not advancing?

Good point. We can just say 'shifted'. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "circa +90 m OD" and "circa -6 m OD" What does OD mean? They should be shown as about 90 metres above x rather than technical terminology few readers will understand.

OD means Ordnance Datum which is sea-level datum at Newlyn. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "The majority of fossils in the Norwich Crag are of marine origin; any terrestrial species were originally blown or washed into it or derived from earlier deposits" This implies that the formation derives from a period when the area was under sea, so why are so many fossils of large mammals as described in the next sub-section?

Hmmm. I know I could do more justice to the marine taxa, but I thought that the terrestrial taxa would interest people more. I will give this a rewrite soon. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "herpetofaunal" Is there an article this term could be linked to? I could not find one. Ditto "lusitanic" - which means Portuguese speaking according to Wikipedia!

Re. 'herpetofaunal' I just wanted to avoid repeating 'reptiles and amphibians' but I see we can use this as an opportunity for Wikilinks. Re. 'lusitanic' it's an important technical term used in marine molluscan studies. I think I'd prefer to leave it, as explanation would wreck the conciseness of the entry. People will have to read reference 15 to understand. The only way out would be to delete the bit in parenthesis, although I believe it has distinct explanatory value. Tall-timothy (talk)

• Tall-timothy this is a first rate article following your rewrite. It is at times over-technical for general readers, and I have raised some points on this above. My main query is that it is unclear how far the Norwich Crag was marine, and how far tidal or terrestial. It would be helpful to clarify this in both the lead and the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The NCF is a marine formation with environments fluctuating between nearshore and offshore. I will check it over and make this clearer. I don't think it would be a good idea to have separate sections called 'Marine Mammals' and 'Terrestrial Mammals'. Perhaps I just need to flesh out the marine mammal record better. Tall-timothy (talk)

@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for your comments, which I will use to improve the text.

Great. Please upload the current version to your sandbox to take account of recent edits made by myself and others. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Dudley Miles, I have cocked up. I forgot what I said about the sandbox and have been making changes as per the comments above. I have now put the current version into User:Tall-timothy/sandbox. Apologies.

No problem. Personally, I think it is better at this stage to work in the article itself, as other editors may make changes to the article while you are changing the sandbox, thus creating two versions which would then need to be merged. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted an amended version to User:Tall-timothy/sandbox for your review. Tall-timothy (talk)

Any comments on the leader section @Dudley Miles:? Tall-timothy (talk)

I will try to get to it tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• "It is the second youngest unit of the Crag Group, a sequence of four geological formations spanning the Pliocene to Lower Pleistocene transition in East Anglia. It was deposited between approximately 2.4 M and 1.8 M years ago." It is not clear what the "It" in the second sentence refers to. Maybe "It was deposited between approximately 2.4 M and 1.8 M years ago, and is the second youngest unit of the Crag Group, a sequence of four geological formations spanning the Pliocene to Lower Pleistocene transition in East Anglia."

Yes, good Tall-timothy (talk)

• "It rests discontinuously on the Red Crag Formation and oversteps in other places onto the Coralline Crag, the Palaeogene formations and Chalk Group bedrock. It is overlain disconformably by the Wroxham Crag Formation, and unconformably by the Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup and Mid Pleistocene glacigenic deposits." The wording is too close to the source. Wikipedia requires editors to rephrase in their own words in order to avoid copyright violation. I assume "discontinuously" means "in some places" and changing to those words would be clearer to readers. As disconformity is a type of unconformity and the Wroxham Crag immediately follows the Norwich Crag, I do not understand what the BGS means by saying that the Norwich Crag is "Overlain disconformably by Wroxham Crag Formation". How about "It rests in some places on the Red Crag Formation and in others unconformably on Coralline Crag, Palaeogene formations and Chalk Group bedrock. It is overlain by the Wroxham Crag Formation, and unconformably by the Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup and Mid Pleistocene glacigenic deposits." Also I think glacigenic is a typo in the source - it should be glaciogenic. These comments also apply to the same comments in the main text.

A disconformity is a significant break in deposition without reaching the status of an unconformity. I guess it's a minor distinction we can do lose it. Tall-timothy (talk)

'Glacigenic' is a technical term used by the BGS as part of its lithostratigraphic framework, and I think it's important to maintain its use here. See [2]. Tall-timothy (talk)

• These are my comments on the lead. I will look at the main text later. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• The main remaining problem is that most of the citations do not have page numbers. These are needed (unless the paper is very short) so that the reader can easily check the source of statements.

I know. I may have to let somebody else do this until I have the time to go through them. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "The term Crag was first used in a geological sense by R.C. Taylor in 1823, a word commonly used in Suffolk to designate a deposit of fossil sea shells[1] or any shelly sand or gravel.[2]" This is not grammatical. How about "The term Crag is commonly used in Suffolk to designate a deposit of fossil sea shells or any shelly sand or gravel. It was first used in a geological sense by R.C. Taylor in 1823.[1][2]"

That works. Should the number order of grouped references be done sequentially or in their order of pertinence? I guess the latter. Tall-timothy (talk)

• "they have been used to erect palaeontological zones" "erect" seems an odd word in this context.

I'll replace with "construct palaeontological zonal schemes".Tall-timothy (talk)

• lusitanic - you can't expect readers to seek out a reference to understand a word in an article. It would be best if you create a short article on Lusitanic (geology) and link to it.

'Lusitanic' refers to a biogeographical province, like 'arctic' and 'boreal'. See for example: http://andrelevy.net/pdfs/complex-origins-lusitania-biogeographic.pdf. In our case, some elements of the fauna are of northern type and some are Atlantic from the area between Biscay and the Straits, i.e. 'lusitanic', which poses problems for interpretation. This word is used in Peter Norton's paper (1977). Maybe the terminology has changed since then. I could always ask him. Tall-timothy (talk)

• There is a [citation needed] which needs sorting.

I imported this sentence from the initial Wikipedia entry. I don't know who wrote it. I cannot find evidence of the correctness of this sentence so I thought best to flag it up. I'd prefer to delete it but didn't want to offend its author!Tall-timothy (talk)

• " suggests caution in interpretation" Perhaps "means that caution is needed in interpretation".

Yes. Tall-timothy (talk)

• " during the Gelasian Stage of the Pleistocene" I would add "between 2.4 and 1.8 million years ago"

Yes, that's missing. Tall-timothy (talk)

• That is all. A first rate article but it still needs a bit of work, especially page numbers for the citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dudley Miles. Tall-timothy (talk)

I have been trying to understand how multiple page citations can be handled in the references. Tall-timothy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• You have "Gibbard, PL, Zalasiewicz, JA & Mathers, SJ (1998). Stratigraphy of the marine Plio-Pleistocene crag deposits of East Anglia. In: van Kolfschoten, T and Gibbard, PL (eds): The Dawn of the Quaternary - proceedings of the SEQS-EuroMam Symposium : Kerkrade, 16–21 June 1996. Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience, 1998; pp.239-262." It is usual to put a space between the "." and the numbers and no full stop at the end, so if you want more pages you might have "pp. 239-262, 302-304". However, different people have different styles, and the main rule is that whatever style is adopted is kept to throughout the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tall-timothy This is a very good article now, but it still needs some work, which you may not have time for. If you have any other queries, or you complete the revision and want me to have another look, then give me a ping. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)