This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia
Previously, the article wasn't coherent --- it talked about some interesting individual geological features, but didn't really relate them to each other, and didn't give an overview for non-experts. Contrast it to Geology of the Appalachians, or even Geology of the Yosemite area. What I've done is restart the article, using USGS PD information as an overview. We can fill in more material and details. hike39506:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is decent, and well written. But I see two main deficiencies (in case anyone is interested in working on it). First, it is rather a description of geological (or geographic?) features, and lacks both description of the underlying processes (e.g., subduction, movement of plates, etc.) responsible for these features, and any common theme relating these features into a common story. (For an example of how these issues can be handled find a copy of McKee's Cascadia – sadly out of date, but a good model – or Figge's recent Evolution of the Pacific Northwest.)
Second, "the Pacific Northwest region of the United States and Canada" is ambiguous. Is it the geopolitical Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, but excluding the south-western portion of Canada)? Or the Pacific Northwest of the North American continent, which can be aligned with a distinct geological province? The geology of the northern halves of Washington and Idaho are closely linked to the geology of southern British Columbia, and should (as the the article does) be considered together. I don't know if it would be good idea to change the title, but certainly the ambiguity should be clarified. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much of a geology guy, but can anybody with more background comment on whether Good article status is within reach for this article? What would need to be added/fixed to make it a good candidate? -Pete (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
