# Talk:Geological mapping of Georgia (U.S. state)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geologic map of Georgia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead needs to state that it is about the state of Georgia, not the country.
 Done
In sections, only the first word of the title should be capitalized.
 Done
Why does Chamber of commerce link to puffery in the "Previous Statewide Geologic Maps of Georgia" section?
Has 2 dead URL's.
 Done


#### References
"Recent Geologic Mapping in the State of Georgia" is completely unreferenced.
 Done


### Decision
I have decided to put the article on hold for a week. Overall, it's a good article, just needs a bit more work. buffbills7701 14:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has passed. buffbills7701 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


### Corrections and explanation
Thanks Buffbills7701 for your review. I have made the changes you requested. I hope they have addressed your concerns. If not, let me know. The reason that "puffery" was linked to "Chamber of Commerce" in this article was because the term "Chamber of Commerce" was used in a derisive context. The intention was to say that the work was not scientific in nature, but promotional, presenting an exaggerated image of the economic geology. That is pretty much a spot-on definition of puffery. But, as you observed, that point was far from obvious. So the sentence has been reworded to better explain the situation.  Gulbenk  (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Shan't we add "(U.S. state)" clarification to the name? Or the country of Georgia has no geologic maps? --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 14:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Secondplanet (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The section ==The Geology of Georgia== was copied from Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) in the edit of 17:20, 14 October 2013 by user:Gulbenk with no attribution. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Vsmith (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Added link to this article at Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) with edit summary notation that material from that article was used in Geologic map of Georgia (U.S. state). Is there something else which might further clarify attribution? Gulbenk  (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that should cover it, thanks. It seems as virtually that entire article was involved and now the two articles should be merged. I'm thinking the mapping content should be moved to be a major section in the Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) article and this turned into a redirect. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the addition of information from Geologic map of Georgia (U.S. state) to Geology of Georgia (U.S. state), or the complete merger of the two articles, would produce a satisfactory result. The geology of Georgia is a useful and informative subsection of *this* article. But I don't think that someone seeking information primarily on the geology of Georgia would be interested in a protracted discussion of the history and personalities involved in the production of the geologic map, particularly if that information took up more than half the article, as it would. The "See also" section of Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) currently provides a link for those interested in such information. I greatly appreciate your efforts to improve this article, and to clarify sourcing information. I would be open to the idea of a larger, single, article... if that could be properly done. But I honestly view the two articles as serving separate purposes, and currently support keeping each one - separately. Gulbenk  (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The geology of Georgia section of this article was copied from and is an exact duplication of Geology of Georgia (U.S. state).  Such a duplication violates the WP:REDUNDANTFORK guideline and is potentially misleading to readers.  A simple link from this article to Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) is all that is needed for readers to edify themselves on the subject.  Let's merge the content.  Notifying previous discussants.  —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

With no objection, I will conduct the merge.  —  AjaxSmack  16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry  AjaxSmack  missed this review request, or I would have lodged an objection at that time. Replacing the deleted section, pending a more detailed justification for it's retention. Gulbenk  (talk)
This question has come up in the past, with no action taken to delete the section (or a reversal of the deletion, if that ever happened - don't recollect which). It should be in the archives. There was also a proposal to merge this article with one concerning the Geology of Georgia, again without action taken. The thrust of the findings was that, while each article contained useful and sometimes duplicated information they were separate enough in content that a reader might be best served by both existing separately. As for duplication being harmful.... as to be "potentially misleading to readers" as suggested, that seems pretty unlikely. Gulbenk  (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The section in question is an exact cut-n-paste duplicate of the entire Geology of Georgia (U.S. state) article and there is no reason to have two articles with the same text, especially since the copied section is outside the scope of this article.  There are two links in this article, one in the intro and one in the "See also" list, linking to Geology of Georgia (U.S. state).  That is how Wikipedia guides readers to information they are seeking, not by duplicating the information in other articles.  Please nb the WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:DUPLICATE guidelines.  (If you care to merge the two articles completely, you can open that discussion, but there are WP:WEIGHT issues that it would cause.)  —  AjaxSmack  08:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
No question about the cut a paste. But that serves a useful purpose here. If one had an interest solely in the Geology of Georgia, there seems little reason to make that reader wade through a much longer article about the evolution of Geologic maps of Georgia to get to that information. So a separate and focused article on the specific subject of the Geology of Georgia is more than justified. Conversely, if a reader is seeking information about the Geologic maps of Georgia, it hardly seem "outside the scope" of that subject to include the geology upon which those maps are based. The duplicate information serves that purpose, while facilitating a more efficient display of relevant data for the reader. There is no prohibition against duplicate information. However, it is considered proper to note (within the edit explanation) the cut and paste source when adding duplicate information to an article. I'll review the two guidelines you have supplied to see if changes are mandated. But, based on past discussions and a Good Article review, the current structure is supported. Gulbenk  (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you theotetically if there were a (very) short summary of Georgia's geology in the map article.  But here there is an exact duplicate of the entire geology article.  While there is no "prohibition", there is also no affirmative reason for wholesale duplication, which can hinder coordination and lead to poor sourcing and inconsistent articles.  (In this case, someone added formatting and sources to the geology article but not to the CFORK section in the mapping article.)  These points are made several times in the CFORK talk pages (e.g. here).  —  AjaxSmack  19:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a middle ground which will satisfy all concerned, and correct a recent (ill advised) change to this article. I would suggest, if you agree, that you submit an edited (shortened) version of the Geology section (retaining the map, since this is an article about maps, after all) for mutual consent. At the same time, I would ask your consent and assistance in returning the article to its original title "Geologic Map of Georgia". The significant reduction in page views since that ill advised (and unilateral) change of title would seem to indicate that readers are not finding the article, which is contrary to our objective as an encyclopedia. What say you? Gulbenk  (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 3O Response: Firstly may I thank you for requesting a third opinion.  It's hopefully a pleasant way to resolve a dispute.  That said, as you're probably aware, this is an unqualified opinion from some random editor, so treat it with the distain reverence it doesn't deserve.  It's neither final nor binding.  Here follows the opinion. Don't duplicate; summarise.  Link to the big article with {{main|[[Geology of Georgia (U.S. state)}}. Summarise the article below that template. Here endeth the opinion.  Do with it as you see fit. Chumpih t 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)