| Revision as of 18:27, 6 August 2007 editFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:55, 17 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (53 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!--FAtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| :''The following is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| The article was '''promoted''' 07:15, 4 September 2007. | |||
| This article has been completely rewritten and brought to GA status recently. After reaching GA, further copy-edits, formatting, and general clean-up was accomplished. The article is a critical one for evolutionary biology, earth science, and dinosaurs. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| {{hide|bg1=CornflowerBlue|contentcss=border:1px CornflowerBlue solid; |headercss=color:white; |header= Fixes needed, resolved. ] (]) 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |content= | |||
| *<s>'''Fixes needed''' to achieve ]</s> I've included a list below; these are indicating attention needed throughout. Please leave this list intact and include any responses below the list, so that I can easily return to this list and strike items as they are addressed. | |||
| # <s>'''1a''', Copy edit needs</s> (samples only, indicating need for a thorough prose audit): | |||
| #: <s>a) Please define</s> mya on the first occurrence ... short period of time, approximately 65.5 ] (mya). MYA is used later in the article, but the Wikilink says it's mya. Please define on first occurrence and use consistently throughout. | |||
| #: <s>b) (Cause - cause): </s> The cause of the event has centered on an large impact event, increased volcanic activity or other causes ... | |||
| #: <s>c) e.g.</s> is used throughout (not followed by a comma). Pls refer to ]. | |||
| #: d) Possible redundancies (see the exercises to identify redundancy at {{user|Tony1}}): <s>Many </s> Other groups of animals and plants, including mosasaurs, ... in the Deccan traps have <s>all</s> been dated to the ... Stream communities <s>tend to</s> rely less on food from ... | |||
| # <s>'''1c''', '''2d''', referencing.</s> The quality of the sources used is excellent, but there are a few book sources that don't include page numbers. Also, the cite web template is used for some journal and magazine sources, resulting in an inconsistent biblio style; pls use cite news or cite journal as appropriate for a consistent style throughout the article. Also, please use the parameter format = PDF as needed on the cite templates. | |||
| #:<s>I added cite tags</s> to 3 uncited paragraphs. ] (]) 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # <s>'''2''', MOS</s> | |||
| #: a) Wikilinking problems; see ] and ]. The first occurrence of relevant terms should be linked, common terms are not. I noticed in the first part of the article that ]s is linked, while ] is not. Also, since there is no article for the red-linked ], the reader either needs a definition for the term, or a stub could be created. Also, the same word shouldn't be linked twice in two sentences (Organisms which depended on ] became extinct or suffered heavy losses due to reduced ]. ] organisms, from ] ... ) Is "sea floor" different than ]? Sea floor is used first, but not linked. There are technical terms throughout that aren't linked or defined (example, calcareous nanoplankton). These are samples only from the firt section: pls review linking throughout. | |||
| #: <s>b) See also,</s> refer to ]. Terms are ideally defined in the article and not repeated in See also. Several terms already well discussed in the article are repeated in See also. For example, ] and ] are daughter articles, linked with a main template, yet are repeated in See also. Pls review and prune See also. | |||
| #: <s>c) A similar situation exists</s> for External links (see ] and ]). Ideally, the text of an article will include or reference most relevant information on the topic, and a comprehensive article will have minimal external links. But again, there is information about Chicxulub and Deccan Traps, as examples only, in the Exernal links. Please review and prune the link farm. Some of the links may find more appropriate homes in the daughter articles. | |||
| #: <s>d) ],</s> no unspaced emdashes. | |||
| #: <s>e) Missing</s> conversions on some units (see ]) {{t1|convert}} is very easy to use once you get used to it. | |||
| #: <s>f) Solo years</s> should not linked (see ]) | |||
| #: <s>g) ''Main articles:</s> ]'' It's only one article, so it could be handled correctly in the singular by using the {{t1|main}} template. | |||
| # '''2a''', ]: | |||
| #: <s>a) Please refer to ] and ]. </s> I believe "widely known as the '''K–T extinction event''', ..." would be the requisite markup. | |||
| #: b) More significantly, the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article, preparing the reader for further detail later introduced in the article. The detail is in the article; the lead is a summary. Yet, the first sentence of the article begins, "Despite the severity of the K–T extinction event, ... " It discusses the ''severity'' of the event before it has discussed the severity of the event! I don't know how best to fix this, but some rearrangement of the order of sections/info presented might solve this problem. | |||
| (See the instructions at both ] and ]; pls close the peer review.) Please keep responses below my sig so I can easily strike items as they are addressed. | |||
| ] (]) 22:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I can't figure out how to do this logically, so here goes: | |||
| *Fixed bolding of K-T extinction event. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Orange, it's not necessary to respond point by point (they're generally only samples anyway), and will just clutter the FAC; I'll revisit when you've done a chunk. ] (]) 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *MYA should capitalized per ]. Just thought you should know. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Then the inconsistency between ] and ] needs to be addressed; I'll ping Tony. ] (]) 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***If used, it is nearly always "mya" (lowercase) in my experience, but the more common format is "]" ("mega-annum") in the geological and paleontological literature. ] 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I've noticed some inconsistencies in ], but I always assumed that if I stick with one inconsistency consistently (hmmm), I'd be all right. As for Ma, I would say that's what written sometimes in geological literature. I've seen almost everything from BP to everything spelled out. The problem with Ma is that it might be too academic, and mya (or MYA) is clear to most readers. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Hopefully consensus will develop at MOSNUM; seems it's not straightforward. ] (]) 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note: I believe I've caught all the e.g.'s. I've done a search, and I can't find anymore. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| With regards to 3f, this indicates it is editor's choice as to whether single years are wikilinked or not. I don't like them, especially since clicking on the year 2000 will not be at all helpful with this article. Any opinion?] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally, on every FAC I've read, consensus is that solo years aren't linked unless something in our article about that year provides particular ] to the article. The idea is that there's no need to distract the reader from the high-value links. ] (]) 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Always thought they were silly, so I'm agreeing and removing the wikilinks!!! ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wikilinking is looking better, but some reviewers object to linking of any words commonly known to English speakers; for example, ] and ] unless the country article provides specific context to this article. ] (]) 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The wikilinking is looking good; I've not struck it yet because, in the event you decide the article sections need to be re-ordered to explain the severity/causes of the event before discussing the Extinction patterns, the links may need to be revisited so that the first occurrence of relevant terms is linked. I'm still confused about the section ordering, as it seems strange to dive straight into the different rates of extinction before setting the framework of the event. ] (]) 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Regarding references. The only journals that use the cite web template are three online journals, that do not use the standard "journal, volume, issue, page" format. I think cite web is preferable to cite journal in this particular case. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The Astrobiology sources (Mullen) are hard-print sources (preferable to web sources for a science article), so I converted them to cite journal. One of the links was dead (pls check that I updated it correctly), and I added the correct publication dates. Striking that above. ] (]) 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Regarding Wikilinks. I think I've wikilnked everything. I wish there was a bot that did this work, it's hard on the eyes. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **A bot wouldn't have known that someone didn't know what ] meant in the context of ] :-) I haven't struck the wikilinking yet because, if you have to reorganize some section ordering, that affects wikilinking. Great progress ! ] (]) 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| One note in passing, please recheck the DOIs, I got 2 errors in 5 tries. ] 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :One journal seems to give out bad doi's--I know the two cases. I posted to the Village Pump, and I think we've all given up. I'll delete the bad doi's, even though the references are fine.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' en.wiki have lots of excellent preistoric-articles and this is one. --] 07:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Only a minor point, but does the line "the most powerful thermonuclear bomb ever tested", where tested links to ], constitute an easter egg link and if so should it be reworded? ] 10:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure what you mean. The link does go to the largest thermonuclear bomb tested, so that makes sense to me. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its just one wouldn't normally expect "tested" to link to "Tsar Bomba". No matter, its hardly important. ] 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *For the external link section: a quick analysis: | |||
| :1. "Chicxulub": Greta Keller on Chicxulub as a "debate" (not much of a debate, since it's all her stuff) | |||
| :2. "Dinosaur dust-up": Princeton article on Keller's work | |||
| :3. "The Deccan Traps Volcanism-Greenhouse Dinosaur Extinction Theory": does what it says on the box | |||
| :4. "Deccan traps": Link to a site that discusses the Deccan as not a mantle plume; doesn't talk about the extinction | |||
| :5. "Understanding the K–T Boundary" - seems like a pretty good complement | |||
| :6. "Shiva crater: Chatterjee et al. 2002 ''Volcanism, India–Seychelles Rifting, Dinosaur Extinction, and Petroleum Entrapment at the KT Boundary'' (GSA abstract)": it's the source on Shiva; your mileage may vary as to how germane you find it, but it seems useful | |||
| :7. "List of 172+ impact craters in ''Earth Impact Database'' with Crater name, Diameter, Age, Country, Latitude, Longitude, etc.": indiscriminate list of impacts | |||
| :8. "Earth Impact Database": Same thing as the previous | |||
| :9. "The KT Boundary": BBC radio broadcast, looks all right | |||
| :10. "Chicxulub impact predates the K–T boundary mass extinction": Greta Keller's 2004 abstract | |||
| :11. "The Deccan Traps Volcanism-Greenhouse Dinosaur Extinction Theory": intro page to "The Deccan Traps Volcanism-Greenhouse Dinosaur Extinction Theory" | |||
| :12. "Tom Holtz' lecture notes": doesn't seem helpful, as it's more or less redundant with this page except for some off-the-wall old extinction hypotheses | |||
| :13. "Richard Cowen's analysis of the K–T extinction": essay, favors multiple factors, seems all right | |||
| :14. "UC Berkeley's survey of theories": does what it says; UC Berkeley does a good job | |||
| :My recommendations: cut 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 right off, then decide how much Keller you want; for essentially one voice that knows how to push the media and make it appear as if there is a giant controversy (I'm sure OrangeMarlin is familiar with how this works, given his experience with evolution articles), she's getting undue weight (all of the "News" links are to her as well). ] 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the suggestions. Evolution articles? I have no clue about them. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW, I agree with your assessment of Keller. I was beginning to think she was a bit of a loudmouth, but I'm not "into" the field, so I wasn't sure. But I am not reading a lot of articles supporting her position. I'm concerned that her weight in this matter is approaching "undue." I'm doing a search later today on articles linking to hers, and I'll see what happens. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I rewrote the first paragraph of the post-lead section. What do you think? ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Well ... still concerned. That the text has to say "discussed below" is a tipoff that different article organization is needed. I don't like sending readers to and fro, and think the article would flow better if you'd tell us what it was before you tell us what it did. ] (]) 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I tried something new. Here's the problem--the event is the extinction, which was complex. If you were like me, before I ever read this article, my image of the event was an asteroid hitting the earth, and there's a big T. rex burning up in the ensuing explosion. In other words, the extinction event is a biological or evolutionary event, less a geological one. I don't want to give undue weight to the impact event (or Deccan traps) or whatever. So I think my rewriting keeps to the biological nature of the event, keeping a discussion of the geological part until later. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Makes sense and it reads better now; hopefully we'll hear from others more familiar with the topic during the FAC. So, the only concerns I haven't struck are ce/redundancy reducing and this post-lead paragraph business and how it may relate to future wikilinking needs. I'll defer to others on those two (copyediting isn't a strength), but I'm generally satisfied with the structural elements of the article. ] (]) 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Oppose</s>. You need to follow the MOS. Headers should not contain redundancy with article title; first mention of title should not be wikilinked. E.g. for headers, use "Patterns", "Evidence", "Duration", "Cause". Without prejudice towards raising further problems. ] 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Also, {{tl|main}} is not the correct template to use. Check usage info, and compare with {{tl|details}}, {{tl|further}} and {{tl|seealso}}. Alternatively, seek consensus to repurpose the templates according to what seems to have become common practice. (Hint: good karma.) ] 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, per ] the bolded title shouldn't be linked; those links should be worked in later. ] is mentioned and can be linked in the lead, but Tertiary Period isn't mentioned elsewhere in the lead, and needs to be worked in. The only redundant section heading I see per ] is Cause of K–T extinction event ... which could be shortened to just Cause. If this article doesn't summarize the other Main articles (using ]), different templates should be used. ] (]) 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes, someone has now changed the instructions for {{tl|main}} to be the opposite of what they were originally, and that's probably a good thing, seeing that the behaviour of the uninitiated proves this to be the more intuitive use of the template. ] 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe I've repaired this problem. ] 00:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support'''. The only suggestion I would have, is I did not see any reference to the Michael Rampino conjecture about the origin of the Deccan Traps associated with the convergence of surface seismic waves from the asteroid strike at the antipodal point.--] 14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not familiar with it. Can you add it in if it's got a decent reference? ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, I added a reference to it, but it was reverted. It appears that Rampino was not the first to wonder about this, but he did publish a poster about it at the 1993 AGU meeting. Does not seem to be a very substantial publication. I do wonder about the antipodal seismic focussing mechanism, but it must be remembered that we have essentially no data to look at. This all has to be done by computer simulation, which is plenty unreliable, especially when dealing with the continuum mechanical properties of material that we are unfamiliar with, in the mid and lower part of the crust, under extreme circumstances that we have never observed before. I would be less concerned about the paleogeography estimate that the antipodal point was "20% off" from the Deccan Traps, because of the lateral heterogeneity of the earth's crust, which can significantly alter travel times of seismic waves. In this case, we would be dealing with paleo lateral heterogeneities, which are even less certain than paleogeography. The current heterogeneous structure which has it largest components in the spherical harmonics of order 2 was only discovered in the last 20 years or so. And it has fairly large error bars. And other components of higher (and lower) order as well. What it might have been 65 million years ago is a bit speculative, to say the least. Also, it is not clear what the nature of the impact was. Was it a glancing blow? Was it a direct hit? These would excite different kinds of seismic waves, to be sure, and probably not seismic waves that are of uniform amplitude in all directions. The materials of the solid earth are not linear by any means, and there is no reason there is not some dispersive and amplitude-dependent effects involved here as well. So basically, the reversion I think is a bit naive, but I do not have any published studies to substantiate this comment at this point.--] 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The biggest problem, as I pointed out in my suggested addition, is the uncertainty in the temporal coincidences. However, there are always difficulties and revisions to these temporal estimates, as indicated in the text of the article itself, and fairly large error bars, depending on the method that is used, the number and quality of samples tested, and so on. I do not think this is necessarily a show-stopper either, but I do not have a publication to demonstrate this at this point. The interesting part of this is the fact that the theory does exist and has been debated and has received considerable media attention. These are all verifiable. --] 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It should be remembered, that when dealing with cutting edge science and theories, like this one, there will be loose ends. I think the value of WP compared to other encyclopediae is that it can go into detail on many more things, and at least provide links to alternative theories or interesting facts and debates that the reader can explore if they are interested. This makes WP far more valuable, since it suggests that science is not all neat and clean, particularly when it is fresh and new and not yet established firmly. Including this, with appropriate caveats, is exactly what WP should do.--] 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, it was suggested in the early 1990s and largely refuted since then. It's not cutting edge. When it was suggested, people didn't have access to the compelling geochemistry information showing that Deccan started first, or to the paleoreconstruction data showing that Deccan was thousands of kilometers from the actual antipode. You'd be hard pressed to find advocates that this is much more than coincidence now. At best, Chicxulub stirred up an already erupting province, but you'd need a more recent reference for that. ] 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comments'''—This is impressive, but I'd like to see an unfamiliar collaborator go through it to clean out the glitches. I picked up just a few to demonstrate that the ''whole'' text needs attention. | |||
| **Opening sentence: The Cretaceous–Tertiary event was the catastrophic mass extinction of extant animal species in a comparatively short period of time, approximately 65.5 million years ago (mya). Remove "extant". Short compared with what? | |||
| **"With some controversial exceptions"—Remove "some"; it adds absolutely nothing. | |||
| **Fossils whose? | |||
| **"The cause of the event has centered on a large asteroid impact, increased volcanic activity or other catastrophic geological event (in combination or separately)". Not "the cause", but "theories on" or "explanations of" the cause, or similar. | |||
| **"organisms. Organisms" | |||
| **"began dying" --> "died"? | |||
| **"The largest air-breathing survivors of the event, crocodilians and champsosaurs, were semi-aquatic, and, therefore, had access to detritus." The comma fairy is working overtime. "... aquatic and therefore had ..." | |||
| **"In addition, modern crocodilian young ...". Why are the first two words necessary? Remove, please. | |||
| **"Extinction evidence"—"Evidence of extinction" (title) | |||
| **Read MOS on captions that aren't complete sentences (remove dot in at least two; one, I think, ''needs'' a dot).] 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for these comments. I took your test on your user page a few days ago, and I went back and did some massive edits to clean up the language. Apparently, I didn't find them all :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As you run through again, pls watch out for some of the straggling wikilinking issues (some mentioned in my original post); for example, the double linking of photosynthesis within two sentences and the sea bed-ocean floor situation are still there. Is there a difference between sea bed and ocean floor? If not, stick with consistent terminology, and link the first occurrence. ] (]) 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Looks great, well written, well referenced, comprehensive and nicely presented. If I had to make any suggestions it would be a couple of fairly minor copyedits, that in no way disqualify the article from featured status. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I am concerned with structural and factual problems in the discussion on "Extinction patterns" | |||
| *#"There was a progressive decline in the diversity of organisms during the Maastrichtian stage of the Cretaceous period prior to the K-T boundary" - The K-T boundary is literally defined by the iridium anomaly created by the impact event , so this sentence says there was progressive decline in diversity before the impact. If that's what you are intending to say, it needs to be a lot clearer about the implications and provide references. | |||
| *#"The boundary resulted from an ecological crisis..." - Again, the geological community has adopted a standard that the boundary is literally '''defined by''' the impact. The ecological crisis is associated with it, but not the cause of the boundary. | |||
| *#"Organisms which depended on photosynthesis became extinct or suffered heavy losses due to reduced sunlight" and in the lead "These geological events caused extensive weather disruptions which reduced sunlight and led to reduced photosynthesis" - There is an unreferenced assumption that loss of sunlight is the killing mechanism. This continues through the whole section and is poorly justified. In particular, the idea that "weather disruptions" caused loss of sunlight seems bizarre (as opposed to say dust kicked up by an impact). Also, how long was it dark? If the whole section presumes darkness as the primary cause of the extinction patterns, this should be discussed more directly. | |||
| *#"Herbivorous animals, which depended on plants and plankton as their food, died out as their food sources became scarce; consequently, top predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex also began dying." - The cause-effect chain is stated as fact here, when I doubt scientists who be so definitive. For example, if you blot out the sun it gets cold, which could just as easily doomed top predators before the food ran out. | |||
| *#"Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters survived the extinction event, because of the increased availability of their food sources." - unreferenced, stated as fact. Also, can we get some references less than 2 decades old for any of the "detritus" based food chain? A lot of thinking about K-T has changed since then. For example, they found Chixculub. | |||
| *#There is also an unstated implication that if detritus feeding was key, then there must not have been any detritus feeding dinosaurs? Or put another way, what other factors were present that also influenced the extinction patterns? The section doesn't even consider other kill mechanisms, such as darkness induced cold, widespread fires, acid rain, anything else that could plausibly occur following an impact event. I have this sense that the text has bought into one interpretation to the exclusion of other factors. | |||
| *All together this introductory section leads off by discussing "Extinction patterns" in the context of a particular story of why things died that is poorly developed and in parts poorly referenced. I generally think the entire section either needs to focus more directly on the factual issue of what died (seperated from the question of why), or it needs to be clearer that it is providing an interpretation of the extinction patterns and develop that story more plainly. ] 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Later points: | |||
| *#"Iridium is extremely rare in the earth's crust because it is very dense, and therefore most of it sank into the earth's core while the earth was still molten" - This is factually wrong. Iridium is dense, but that's not the controlling factor. Iridium left because it is a ] and chemically alloys with iron readily. Some densier elements, e.g. uranium and thorium, are nonetheless concentrated in the crust because they bind into crust forming rocks in preference to dissolving into iron solution. Also, numbers should be given for the Alvarez Ir concentration and normal background. | |||
| *#The high angle impact is disputed. The persistence of the Ir in the environment argues for a close to vertical impact as the momentum in an oblique impact would carry much of the impactor back into space. | |||
| *] 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there a reference that conclusively demonstrates this impact at a normal incidence? The reason is, that a totally orthogonal collision seems highly unlikely, given the speeds at which these objects approach and the putative mass of this object. If they were just drifting and fell into the earth's gravity field, then an orthogonal totally-inelastic collision is possible. However, given the tiny fraction of steradians relative to 4 pi for which one could expect such a collision, it strikes me as a bit strange to postulate it. An oblique/obtuse impact is far more likely, and if the mass was sufficient, there would still be plenty of mass ablated in the atmosphere and dispersed even on a glancing blow that would result in an Iridium layer. Of course, sufficiently oblique angles and momentum ranges would result in a "skipping phenomenon", or even a slingshot effect with minimal physical contact and associated mass and energy transfer, if any. Basically, I am saying on this issue and a number of others, lets not settle on same baby version of the science, but make it clear that there are some open ended questions here and issues in dispute or not yet settled conclusively. The current state of the science is definitely not final, by any means.--] 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sure there is discussion of this somewhere, but I don't know the iridium reference off hand. However, Morgan et al. 2006 (currently, ref. #41 in the article) concludes that the angle had to be greater than 45 degrees from horizontal, in contrast to the 20-30 degrees of horizontal which is presently stated as undisputed fact in the text. For the record, by "close to vertical" I meant something like within 30 degrees of vertical. Not ridiculously close, but not high angle either. ] 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Also, the K-T boundary was not always defined by the iridium layer. Perhaps the definitions have changed, but the K-T boundary was a well known geochronological feature long before the discovery of a worldwide iridium layer near the K-T boundary. | |||
| *The original definition of the boundary was the extinction event, literally, the ecological crisis. It has been changed? Do we have a reference for that? | |||
| *:Yes it changed, or more correctly no official standard existed before the ] adopted the iridium layer as the standard in 1991. The reference was given above. ] 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *There are multiple killing mechanisms that might be associated with an impact, such as a nuclear winter from the dust kicked up into the upper atmosphere, combustion of a large fraction of the vegetation on the planet (if I remember correctly, are there not carbon particles/soot associated with this layer in many places throughout the earth?), change of the ocean chemistry, change of atmospheric chemistry, and so on. Perhaps they should be described, with references, but I this is a minor point since no one really knows. I do not think this is a reason to deny eventually FA status to this article. I argue strongly that these minor deficiencies should be corrected, and then the article move on to FA status. To do otherwise is to discourage good editors who have put a substantial amount of work into a project from continuing to improve the article to FA status. The entire purpose of the FA should be to encourage better articles, not to hand out gold stars. So let's examine honestly and carefully the deficiencies, correct them together, and move forward to an article we can all be proud of.--] 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to see some reference that associates Eagle Butte or Vista Allegre with the K-T. Saying they are less than 65 Myr in age is not informative, since 35 Ma is after all less than 65 Ma, and crater ages really can have 10s of Myr uncertainties. Please provide something to show people (other than Misplaced Pages) associate these with the K-T. ] 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well please then provide the references and material you feel appropriate for the article.--] 23:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - This article needs to provide ''critiques'' of the different theories, not just list them. There is a significant body of research which concludes that many of the extinctions were not the result of an "event" but more gradual processes. For instance, how do extinction theorists reconcile the survival of so many pH-sensitive amphibian species with worldwide acid rainfall? Why was diversity declining in so many vertebrate taxa well before the boundary? How can you draw conclusions about worldwide terrestrial extinction patterns when the only well-sampled region is northwestern North America? These critiques and others are in the literature and would provide an important balance to the article. The debate is not just about which massive geological event killed off all those species, but also whether it was the result of an "event" in the first place. ] 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On second and third reading, some of these things are mentioned in passing but not connected to anything really. I still would like to see more critique but I do not oppose quite as strongly. ] 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Can someone find a way to reword the lead to avoid i.e.? "With controversial exceptions (i.e. "Paleocene dinosaurs"), all non-avian dinosaurs ... " (See ] on the use of i.e. and e.g.) ] (]) 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **"With controversial exceptions, termed by some "Paleocene dinosaurs".... <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Why not just delete the whole phrase? ] 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I guess it really depends on just how fringy the notion of palocene dinos is. Another option would be to footnote the link, with a short description. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****It is also worth noting that it has a section at the end of the article. ] 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Nomination restarted () ] 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ;A Challenge for Dragons flight | |||
| You appear to be casting yourself as an expert on this issue, yet short of much sound and fury signifying nothing, you've not lifted a finger to actually improve the article. Instead of attempting to impress everyone on this FAC page with your geological knowledge, '''fix the damned aticle'''. OM came across a crappy article and fixed it up as best he could. Why don't you devote the same amount of time to correcting (with citations) those things you think are wrong rather than merely railing against them? ] 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - nice to see it all rejiggled and settled this way. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would agree with this assessment. I have posed a large number of questions to Dragons flight, on this page and on the article talk page. Only a tiny fraction were addressed, and those with an air of general superiority and contempt, which frankly, is somewhat undeserved. I have also asked Dragons flight repeatedly to help us improve the article, if he feels it is so deficient. The goal here is NOT to just dump on the efforts of others, but to produce articles for WP we can all be proud of. That is, you either help in a productive manner, or you are just impeding the mission of Misplaced Pages, frankly. Do you want to be productive or not here? What in fact is your goal here? If you want to play an intellectual game of one-upmanship, as a "PhD candidate" at "Berkeley" in the earth sciences (which does NOT impress me at all, and in fact makes me laugh at how pathetic a gesture this is to brag about such a thing), believe me, you will have your head handed to you. So let's not play silly games which you will surely lose. Let's improve the article, shall we?--] 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I may be way off-base here (and if so, feel free to attempt a ] throw), but I'd be interested in a brief treatment of the historical development of thought on the topic, with points like the recognition that it occurred, the old hypothesis that mammals had replaced dinosaurs because the latter had gotten stagnant, the appearance of Alvarez's work, etc. If anyone else is interested and thinks it's applicable, I'll see what I can find. (Actually, it would also be interesting to have somewhere (not in this article, probably) a description of the numerous rejected theories, many of which fail because all they attempt to explain is dinosaur extinction.) ] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a very good suggestion. A nice para on it with a ref should do the trick nicely. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think absence of such information should hold it up, though; it would just be gravy, and it may take some time to find the proper references. ] 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As the main editor for this article (I don't quite know how that happened), I tried to separate the event from the cause of the event. I like the suggestion on a history of theories of the event, but as soon as we have this article FAC (or close), I want to take that suggestion and use it to improve ], which describes the geological causes of the extinction. That the extinction happened is without controversy. That some environmental event caused the extinction is also without ''much'' controversy (unless, of course, you're some sort of ])). That the environmental event was caused by......., well that's a story to be told. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have trouble with this sentence from the lead: "Mammalian and bird clades passed through the boundary with few extinctions, although radiation occurred well past the boundary." I understand what is meant here: the current diversity of mammals and birds did not develop until after the extinction event. However, using 'although' to connect the two phrases here seems wrong to me; the two facts aren't that closely connected and the radiation event isn't a qualification to the statement about mammalian and avian extinction. Hope that makes sense! ] 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good suggestion. "And" is the proper word, I believe. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I think this article provides good coverage of an important subject. If any Subject Matter Experts are here and have suggestions for improvement, I would implore them to make '''''concrete, substantive suggestions''''', and not just vague general statements.--] 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Great source of information on the subject, very much featured quality. ] 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' A wonderful report of one of our greatest mysteries. A good read and great content depth. aliasd'''·''']'''·'''] 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I'm willing to throw in at this point. Let me know if you need anything; I'll probably continue to pick at it, but there's nothing objectionable as far as I'm concerned, mainly stylistic concerns. ] 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FAbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 04:55, 17 May 2022
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.
Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event
Nomination restarted (old nomination) Raul654 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nice to see it all rejiggled and settled this way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I may be way off-base here (and if so, feel free to attempt a pickoff throw), but I'd be interested in a brief treatment of the historical development of thought on the topic, with points like the recognition that it occurred, the old hypothesis that mammals had replaced dinosaurs because the latter had gotten stagnant, the appearance of Alvarez's work, etc. If anyone else is interested and thinks it's applicable, I'll see what I can find. (Actually, it would also be interesting to have somewhere (not in this article, probably) a description of the numerous rejected theories, many of which fail because all they attempt to explain is dinosaur extinction.) J. Spencer 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very good suggestion. A nice para on it with a ref should do the trick nicely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think absence of such information should hold it up, though; it would just be gravy, and it may take some time to find the proper references. J. Spencer 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- As the main editor for this article (I don't quite know how that happened), I tried to separate the event from the cause of the event. I like the suggestion on a history of theories of the event, but as soon as we have this article FAC (or close), I want to take that suggestion and use it to improve K-T boundary, which describes the geological causes of the extinction. That the extinction happened is without controversy. That some environmental event caused the extinction is also without much controversy (unless, of course, you're some sort of Creationist)). That the environmental event was caused by......., well that's a story to be told. OrangeMarlin 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think absence of such information should hold it up, though; it would just be gravy, and it may take some time to find the proper references. J. Spencer 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very good suggestion. A nice para on it with a ref should do the trick nicely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have trouble with this sentence from the lead: "Mammalian and bird clades passed through the boundary with few extinctions, although radiation occurred well past the boundary." I understand what is meant here: the current diversity of mammals and birds did not develop until after the extinction event. However, using 'although' to connect the two phrases here seems wrong to me; the two facts aren't that closely connected and the radiation event isn't a qualification to the statement about mammalian and avian extinction. Hope that makes sense! 4u1e 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. "And" is the proper word, I believe. OrangeMarlin 05:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this article provides good coverage of an important subject. If any Subject Matter Experts are here and have suggestions for improvement, I would implore them to make concrete, substantive suggestions, and not just vague general statements.--Filll 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great source of information on the subject, very much featured quality. Hello32020 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support A wonderful report of one of our greatest mysteries. A good read and great content depth. aliasd·U·T 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'm willing to throw in at this point. Let me know if you need anything; I'll probably continue to pick at it, but there's nothing objectionable as far as I'm concerned, mainly stylistic concerns. J. Spencer 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.