Talk:Laurentia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WoodPig. Peer reviewers: GEOG430Anon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I started to work on references for this article. Tedious. I will try to come back at another time and do some more. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many more sources for Laurentia available that are not referenced here so I may add some and build on the article for an undergrad Long Term Environmental Change class project. Here is a brief critique of the article as is: The lead section is clear and easy to read, although it could benefit from being more in depth and encompassing. The topics covered are arranged logically. Moving from the structure of Laurentia to the tectonic forces that effected and caused it provide a strong understanding of the continent and its background. The following timeline of Laurentia's geologic history builds on that well. However, these topics could be further developed and more unmentioned and relevant topics (such as relation to other continents and the location of the Ordovician equator) should be added. There is only one subtopic and room for more. Also this article is very geology heavy and would benefit from a summary of climate and ecology, even if the bioregion has it's own article. Combining the two could be beneficial as well. The current references are reliable but, as mentioned, should be added to. Overall a good article but room for development and addition. WoodPig (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Building on Laurentia Article: Open to feedback My main goal for editing this article is to incorporate some key topics on Laurentia that are available but absent from this article. After adding some sections and subsections I plan to broaden the lead section to reflect the additions. Additional topics will include: Continental subduction and it's affects including enrichment of the mantle, equatorial location, flora and fauna (and factors affecting them), as well as elaboration on climate and climate events. New sources: -Chiarenzelli, J., Lupulescu, M., Cousens, B., Thern, E., Coffin, L., & Regan, S. (2010). Enriched Grenvillian lithospheric mantle as a consequence of long-lived subduction beneath Laurentia. Geology, 38(2), 151-154. (DOI: 10.1130/G30342.1 ) -Jin, J., Harper, D., Cocks, L., Mccausland, P., Rasmussen, C., & Sheehan, P. (2013). Precisely locating the Ordovician equator in Laurentia. Geology, 41(2), 107-110. (DOI: 10.1130/G33688.1) -Jin, Harper, Rasmussen, & Sheehan. (2012). Late Ordovician massive-bedded Thalassinoides ichnofacies along the palaeoequator of Laurentia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 367-368, 73-88. (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.05.023) -Chiarenzelli, J., Lupulescu, M., Cousens, B., Thern, E., Coffin, L., & Regan, S. (2010). Enriched Grenvillian lithospheric mantle as a consequence of long-lived subduction beneath Laurentia. Geology, 38(2), 151-154. (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.04.019) -Landing, E. (2012). Time-specific black mudstones and global hyperwarming on the Cambrian–Ordovician slope and shelf of the Laurentia palaeocontinent. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 367-368, 256-272. (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.09.005) WoodPig (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Overall, I thought that everything contributed to this article was relevant and was explained in such a way that it was relatively easy to see how it connected back. The articles voice and wording was pretty neutral, with no real bias and good sense of the topic at hand. I thought that the organization of the article currently was pretty well spaced out and in a logical order to aid in comprehension of the subject. From what I could tell, each source cited was legit and looked like it came from a reputable source. The one thing that I think could be improved is that there were a couple instances where the wording in sentences felt a bit off, like the sentence was too long or there was an awkward phrasing. One instance of this would be the sentence just outside the lead that says "The craton is named after the Laurentian Shield, which in turn is named after the Laurentian Mountains, which were named after the Saint Lawrence River which in turn was named after Lawrence of Rome". I just found it to be a little clunky and awkward to read. I look forward to seeing what other changes you make! GEOG430Anon (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response: Thank you for the feedback! I have not yet done any major edits on this article and my rough plan is in my sandbox. My only alteration to the article so far has been the addition of the last two sentences of the Tectonic setting section. I do agree that it is logically organized with good sources. I did not notice any major issues with the wording but maybe that is something I can work on. My main goal is to build on the existing information add new subtopics that are not yet included and are available from reputable sources. WoodPig (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits for the class are complete. They include a bit on subduction at the end of the Tectonic setting section, the addition of the Equitorial location subsection, and the addition of the Paleoenvironmental change section. So far the new section has highlights of climate events in respect to Laurentia. It could use a bit of overview on vegetation (I could not find any strongly correlated vegetation sources). Feel free to edit any of my work. Finally a thank you to my professor, Answer.to.the.rock, for guidance- especially on the Paleoenvironmental change section. WoodPig (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

I gave proper credit to the North American craton map and what the colors mean. When I get a few more free hours ... Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Awickert (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is looking good. Outdated tag to no references removed. Class B rating deserved. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide view of the southwestern North American Craton

I do not agree. Based on the File:North america craton nps.gif, the deformed craton is similar to the Basin and Range Province. The border of the North American Craton is given by the Sr 0.704/0.706 isotope lines. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have changed the title from "Volcanism on the western edge of the North American craton" to "Volcanism on the southwestern edge of the North American craton", which is WP:NPOV in this case. I'm not stupid. You may think subduction volcanism is nothing special but others may disagree. What really matters is a wordwide view of the subject, not some Americanism. Much of Laurentia lies in Canada, as well does its western edge. Laurentia most likely has more magmatic features in Canada than in the United States given its larger size in Canada compared to the American portion. I am attempting to create an article for large magmatic events that will very likely "bust" the large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province article. BT (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, do not bust. It was a compromise, I do not think that u are stupid. Peace... The image has three colours: North American Craton (brown), deformed craton (violet), accretionary belt (green). This one section only talks about the west (violet). Yellowstone and Socorro are coming, you can't top that ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I make the article I am plaining to create it is going to include more extreme magmatic formations, some over 100,000 km² (39,000 sq mi). Then I am probably going to add some of it into this article with the Basin and Range stuff. BT (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the long list of eruptions as undue weight and redundant with Large volume volcanic eruptions in the Basin and Range Province. That list should be improved with coords from the history here. An article section needs to be prose based and not undue weight of one particular portion. Vsmith (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Can somebody explain why commons:North america craton nps.gif does not show anymore? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I can't find an etymology anywhere, and the page seems to need one, so if anyone can find it that would be great. --Kurtle (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Platform thickness

Article states that the platform thickness ranges "from 1000m" - surely at the very edge, the thickness approaches zero? Also, there's no mention of the phanerozoic cover in northern Ontario in the Hudson/James Bay lowlands - I guess this should be mentioned in the platform section too? 205.234.50.212 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)