Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paleocene/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2019 [1].

Paleocene

edit
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct. There're no other GA or FA geological periods so I'm trying to make a really good template for it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
I found 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was all. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all people mentioned are presented with both nationality and occupation.
If you're referencing T. C. R. Pulvertaft, I originally put "Danish geologist" but this got reverted because the source didn't say he's Danish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could expand the etymology section a bit more with history of the term., For example, you don't mention that it is an epoch, when it was considered as such, how use of the term has evolved, and what the Tertiary is, or what period it is currently considered part of. Perhaps the etymology section could be expanded into a history of usage section or similar.
I think all that's really relevant here about the Tertiary and Paleogene is that they're periods which contains the Paleocene. Discussion over their nomenclature and dates and so forth can be discussed in their respective articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I said mainly concerned the history of the concept Paleocene, "when it was considered as such (an epoch), how use of the term has evolved". You cover the usage of the stages within it in more detail, so I don't see why you shouldn't for the overall subject itself. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How's it now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the context is good, maybe a bit long-winded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want specific parts trimmed off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, "first epoch of the Paleogene Period in the modern Cenozoic Era" is only mention in the intro, but should be covered and explained further in the article body, perhaps in the Boundaries section or a "usage/history" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there is any logic as to when you use a fossil or a life restoration to represent an animal?
Depends which picture looks better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused a cataclysmic event resulting in the extinction of 75% of all life" You could add "at this boundary" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sea cliffs of Itzurun beach near the town of Zumaia" This caption gives no context as to why the image is used here. Also, you could mention the country.
That would be a very long caption if it did, which is why it's located right next to the paragraph which gives it context   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least you should mention the formation it represents. Image captions are supposed to provide context for the images, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions: "3 establishes the picture's relevance to the article; 4 provides context for the picture;". Neither has been done here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added "the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The K–Pg boundary rock image could also be given a location, which I think would actually be good for all the fossil and rock images used, for context. Age or formation as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum" You could likewise explain what an epoch and period are, when you put the Paleocene into context as discussed above.
  • "and is marked by the first appearance of Discoaster and a diversification of Heliolithus" State what kind of lifeforms these are, also elsewhere in the article when you mention taxa.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A chron is when a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities–occurs." This reads rather confusingly, how about "A chron is the occurence of a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paleomaps would help reader understanding under Paleogeography.
I tried looking but there aren't any PD Paleocene maps. I could put in a late Cretaceous and probably an Eocene map   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if any of these are of use:[3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the first one is actually PD (and it's in Spanish), the second one is in some foreign language, so I used the third one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Restoration of Patagonia during the Danian" Specify it is a restoration of the flora.
I wouldn't say it's just of the flora, I mean there's a lake to the right and a mountain in the back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patagonian landscape then. "Restoration of Patagonia" could mean a lot of things. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in modern day" The modern day? Seems a bit half finished, unless you say for example "modern day America".
there's nothing wrong with "in modern day"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, deep water formation–where, in the thermohaline circulation, warm tropical water becomes colder and saltier at the poles and sinks (downwelling)–occurs in two places: the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic Peninsula." This is an extremely long and convoluted sentence, perhaps places like this need parenthesis instead of subordinate clauses.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climate across K-Pg boundary" Across the.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the temperature in the latest Danian varies at about the same magnitude, this event coincides with an increase of carbon." Why present tense al of a sudden?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been important factors of the Paleocene understory." Component instead of factor (which seems)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacGinitiea" I'm pretty sure such formatting is not allowed in taxonomic names, you need Macginitiea.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] fill recently emptied niches, and an increase in rainfall" Something missing here, I guess "take advantage of" also applies to the increased rainfall, but not to "fill empty niches". One solution could be to reorder it as "to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] an increase in rainfall, and to fill recently emptied niches".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered quickly from in the Eocene from immigrants from the Caribbean" The from from is clunky, how about "through immigration from the Caribbean"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "woody angiosperms had become the dominant plant" Should be "plants" then, the former is plural.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the extinction event, every land animal" You have mentioned a few extinction events by this time, would be good to specify C/PG.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous throughout the Mesozoic to avoid competition with dinosaurs (nocturnal bottleneck)." Shouldn't the nocturnal bottleneck article be linked at first mention of nocturnal here instead?
I don't think most people would know nocturnal bottleneck is an actual thing and would think nocturnal just links to nocturnal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "monotremes Obdurodon sudamericanum[95] and Monotrematum." Obdurodon sudamericanum links to Monotrematum, so that genus name should be used only, there is only one species.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large carnivores include the wolf-like" Included, the rest is written in past tense.
That would mean Mesonychia are no longer considered large Paleocene carnivores (that's why we also have "Paleocene marsupials include...")
  • "mammalian crown orders" Link to crown group at first mention, now it is further down.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest order of Paleocene mammals" What is meant here, size or numbers?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make sense to follow the reptiles section with the amphibians section, instead of breaking up the vertebrate sections with insects arbitrarily.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sea life" Why exclude rivers and lakes? Better to make the section inclusive, otherwise you don't have anywhere to cover freshwater animals. Even better, you should divide it into fishes, which it mainly covers, and aquatic invertebrates, as all the other sections are grouped by taxon, not by habitat.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of only having a section on insects, there should be one on arthropods (or land invertebrates) as a whole, I'm sure something can be said about various other types, looks rather arbitrarily grouped now.
So we have Insects and arachnids and Marine invertebrates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crown group could maybe be defined in text, it's not a common term.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crown group bird known is Tsidiiyazhi abini" Why use full binomial, when you mainly use only genus names otherwise?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil record also records" Repetitive wording. Includes or similar would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Mesozoic, birds and pterosaurs exhibited size-related niche partitioning–no known Late Cretaceous bird has a wingspan greater than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) nor exceeded a weight of 5 kg (11 lb), whereas contemporary pterosaurs ranged from 2–10 m (6 ft 7 in–32 ft 10 in), probably to avoid competition." Why mid sentence change of tense to present?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some bird species reached gigantic proportions" You should specify terrestrial or flightless, as all those mentioned are such.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may be zombie taxon" Taxa is plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, and recovered the same pre-extinction abundance." This is unclear due to the tense. Did they or did they not recover their former abundance?
They, in fact, recovered   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the sentence is a bit hard to understand. You first say they were unable to exploit vacant niches, but that they recovered the same abundance as before. So what is meant by abundance, numbers? Because the former part of the sentence would seem to preclude diversity? FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says, "sharks appear to have remained stuck at similar abundances in the Paleocene as they had in the Cretaceous, suggesting that they were unable to exploit newly opened niches after the extinction," also I really don't understand what the confusing part is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word "recovered" suggests that there was a drop in abundance at some point, not that it remained steady. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a drop in abundance because of the K-T extinction event, which recovered in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is the juxtaposition of the information that is confusing. Perhaps ""Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, yet/but recovered the same pre-extinction abundance" would make it less ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the fact that they had recovered the same abundance level which indicates they didn't exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered greater abundance, this would indicate they did exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered less abundance, this would indicate they were outcompeted in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as ground sharks were more suited to hunting the rapidly diversifying ray-finned fish whereas mackeral sharks target larger prey" Needless change in tense.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were able to expand their diets to seeds and able to form" Last able not needed.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known Paleocene ant fossil is the aneuretine Napakimyrma paskapooensis from the 62–56 million year old Paskapoo Formation.[1" This should be stated in the beginning of the ant paragraph then, after "Though there is a gap in the ant fossil record from 78–55 mya". It wasn't clear from reading that the entire long paragrapgh was not even based on paleocene fossils until I reached the end. In fact, it seems a bit too detailed here if it mainly refers to what's known from the Eocene.
I thought I made it fairly clear it's based on Eocene and Cretaceous fossils by saying there's a gap in the fossil record through the Paleocene and by saying "great fossil diversity...in the Eocene and their rarity in the Cretaceous indicates an explosive diversification of modern ants in the Paleocene"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear enough to indicate only a single taxon is known (which clarifies the rest of the text), so it would help the reader understand if that part was moved earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cretaceous cusk eel Pastorius methenyi" Like earlier, full binomial instead of just genus, though the former is the norm here, perhaps there are others.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a time, it is possible the mass extinction of these creatures–including the once abundant ammonites, Exogyra oysters, and even vertebrates such as mosasaurs–would have provided food for detritovores," Not sure what is meant here, that the carcasses of the extinct animals provided food? Needs clarification.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the name derives from the combining of the Ancient Greek palæo- meaning "old" and the Eocene Epoch" Or rather, it is a combination of those two words (doesn't come from it).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though some animals attained enormous size" Enormous is a bit of an overstatement here. Relatively large or gigantic would be less hyperbolic, we're not exactly talking dinosaur size here, as would be implied.
changed to "great size"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss anything?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit

McInenerney & wing 2011 says on page 507 in Summary Points that the PETM stands as the most dramatic geological confirmation of greenhouse theory etc. This is a salient statement about topic of high interest. Other summary points may be useful as well.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like something for Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum or Greenhouse and icehouse Earth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The first placentals and marsupials evolved in the Paleocene." and (from Cenozoic) "Modern placental mammals originated d uring this time" and even more interestingly "...though there was an explosive diversification, the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins, resulting in a 10 million year gap in the fossil record of other mammalian crown orders" Take all together, I think there should be something in the WP:LEAD about placental mammals, primates, carnivorans, and rodents.All four, not just the first... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed a little over specific for the lead, so I put "Though, mammals proliferated, most Paleocene taxa have ambiguous affinities"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of what goes in a lead and mine seem to be radically different. I think the bit about placental mammals, primates etc. is a key point. After all, " primates are us". If you keep it so general that you exclude such a monumental development, the lead loses its value altogether. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Primates" didn't evolve until the absolute beginning of the Eocene. Any primate-like creature in the Paleocene is arbitrarily thrown into Plesiadapiforms (the ancestral group), so the roots of Primates was in fact in the Paleocene, but primate Primates didn't come in until the Eocene. I made it more clear in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK then. And... What about placental mammals? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins," grammar. meanwhile, you just told me that ain't true for primates, didn't ye (as my mother would say, bless her heart) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

primates are a crown order of mammals, and we know their origins (Plesiadapiforms), so their affinities are unambiguous   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: "the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources: the links in refs 47 and 57 are not working (for me). Please test. Otherwise, links to sources are all working according to the checker tool
That's because both of them went to subscription-only pages, we should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both OK now Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formats
  • Ref 1: incomplete – missing retrieval date
I can't fix that because the ref is included with Template:Paleogene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)ĵ[reply]
  • Ref 3: unformatted url
I don't know where that came from but it was unnecessary so I removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: retrieval date in inconsistent formatĵ
Looks like archive-bot came through and also added access dates for some reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: "PaleoMap Project" is the work rather than the website. The publisher appears to be the site's author, Christopher R. Scotese. What is his status for acceptance as a high quality reliable source?
Christopher Scotese is a paleogeographer who created the PaleoMap Project which produces some of the most detailed paleomaps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously he's the creator of this website. But what are Scotese's broader credentials as a high quality reliable source? What else has he published? Is he an accepted authority, cited by other experts? Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's written about paleogeography, there's a list of his publications on his article page, and (I'm just reading his article) he's a research associate at FMNH, taught at U Texas, now teaches at Northwestern, and predicted Pangaea Ultima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good enough. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 107 and 108: Both showing ancient retrieval dates (12+ years ago). Should be updated.
How do you mean?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an important issue, since I assume the source articles have not changed over the 12 years, but a more recent access date would be consistent with the rest of the sources presentation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're journal articles so they shouldn't have access dates, so I just removed them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: subject to issues raised above, the sources appear appropriately scholarly and meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

edit
" a major climatic event wherein nearly carbon was released" I suggest a quantity of carbon should be specified here. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I accidentally deleted it, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and killed off 75% of life on Earth" I don't want to sound like I'm dissing a certain asteroid that was just minding its own business before a supposedly "mostly harmless" planet hit it; but surely that's 75% of species, and likely a much higher percentage of life. If 75% of species were completely wiped out and a small proportion had a few survivors, the proportion of life that died would be much higher. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the mid-Maastrichtian, more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures." How does increasing carbon in the deep sea increase temperatures there? I understand how carbon in the atmosphere increases global temperatures via the greenhouse effect, and I could see that increased levels of carbon in the deep sea could be an indicator of increased carbon in the atmosphere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the source says "the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration". I think the source is trying to say δ13C increased concentration because total ocean volume decreased, which caused increased give-off of oceanic carbon to the atmosphere, which increased surface temperatures, which in turn increased ocean temperatures, and warmer water has a reduced capacity to store carbon, which eventually led to the Dan-C2 Event   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt total ocean volume is the issue, if anything that shrinks as oceans cool and as glaciation locks up water. Rising temperatures and ice free poles should increase ocean volume. Do you have another source available for this bit? ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ice at the poles from the beginning of the Mesozoic to the late Eocene (so increasing temperatures wouldn't add water to the oceans). The total volume of the oceans was shrinking due to tectonic movement causing the retreat of inland seas (such as the Western Interior Seaway), causing ocean carbon to become more concentrated. He cites someone else who doesn't go farther than "carbon feedback loop" (but he doesn't explain what that means)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Water expands slightly when heated, so even after all ice has melted, inut creasing temperatures will slightly increase the volume of the Oceans due to thermal expansion. Tectonic movement won't change the total volume of the ocean, but it can move things around - so if the Western interior seaway is being uplifted and drained, that water goes elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I think I'm understanding this now. The source (Quillévéré) says "The Dan-C2 event is preceded by a long-term rise inglobal δ13C of marine carbonates and deep water tem-peratures starting during the mid-Maastrichtian (e.g. Norris et al., 2001). As pointed out by Zachos et al.(1989) and Stott and Kennett (1990), the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration" and Stott doesn't say anything more than "carbon feedback loop", and Zachos's main point is that carbon deposition in the deep sea stopped (Strangelove ocean) at the K-T boundary, but there was a cooling trend right before which led to increased carbon deposition, and the source Zachos is citing says the Strangelove ocean increased atmospheric CO2 in the early Danian because the surface of the ocean couldn't absorb as much carbon, which increased surface temperatures, and (he doesn't explicitly say this next part) we know deep sea temperatures fluctuate with surface temperatures, and warmer water dissolves less carbon (the closest Quillévéré says to this is the PETM was caused by the "thermal liberation" of methane), leading to exhumation. This may be what Stott was getting at with "carbon feedback loop" because he also cites Zachos. So I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

edit
Is it intentional that the vegetation section has three specialized subsections and no general one?
You know now that you mention it, Recovery is really more of a general vegetation, it's just in my head the Paleocene was a time the biosphere was recovering so I named it Recovery. What should I rename it to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably separate out the info that is about the post-K-Pg-boundary recovery into a section called "recovery" and put the information about the steady-state vegetation into its own section - or directly under the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That See also section looks a little irrelevant to me.
the boulders are interesting but not to the point where it's necessary to discuss them, so I figured See also is a good place to put it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem I see is that including the boulders comes of a little arbitrary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What should go in a See also section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All images are in good places.
Ref 133 is incorrectly formatted.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Tatarinov and DiBgd:File:Barylambda-faberi.jpg: A little unsure about the way the image came here - was it sent by email?
DiBgd uploaded it to Commons himself, Tatarinov modified it. See upload history, the email is just there for contact purposes I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No ALT text anywhere that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Casliber

edit

Wow looks much better than at GAN.....comments soon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

did some copyediting   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic], and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. - the bracketed bit coms ovr as odd and vague and is an odd construction.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit once Jens finished below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: any comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. nice job! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit

Impressive article I have to say. As normal with such central articles, it seems to need a good deal of fine tuning to reach FA though. Comments from my first read follow.

  • The "Paleotectonics" section is a bit sparse; the constellation of the continents could be explained in much more detail. For example, the fact that Antarctica was still connected to South America and Australia isn't mentioned at all in this section.
What specifically do you wanna see?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, the "Paleoceanography" section feels overly detailed and could be shortened for stringency.
Which parts do you want cut off? I trimmed down the part about Arctic currents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else complains, it's probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic, and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. – This doesn't provide any facts, you could say something similar about all other time periods. Maybe give more specific information here.
I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • French paleobotanist and geologist Wilhelm Philipp Schimper – he was German as well as French. Maybe just remove the "French"?
used French/German   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum ratified by the ICS based on a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point(GSSP) from a single formation (a stratotype) identifying the lower boundary. – No, a stage is not a rock stratum. It is a time unit (chronostratigraphic unit).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the GSSP was defined as the well-preserved El Haria Formation – No, the GSSP is not the formation, it is a specific level within the formation (the K/Pg boundary). Furthermore, the formation cannot be regarded as "well-preserved", you probably mean the section exposing the K/Pg boundary which is well-preserved at the El Kef locality.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It begins about 29 m (95 ft) above the base of the Selandian – in the Thanet Sands, you mean? Why is this of relevance here? The stage is now defined based on GSSP points.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous – this is a formally defined epoch, and therefore has to be capitalised ("Late Cretaceous").
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • though rifting of already thin crust may have also contributed. – does not explain the cause, and I'm not sure what is meant. The initiation of rifting at the mid-oceanic ridge?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • though a Panama arc – not sure about this, to my knowledge there is only one arc with this name. Needs to be reformulated I think.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • evaporation – link it
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • deep sea and surface water temperatures varied synchronously–as one dipped, so did the other–and, as such, there were probably not very defined thermoclines–layers of water of different temperatures which allow for a large difference in deep water and surface temperatures – this feels of topic here, and might be better placed in Oceanography (it feels a bit repetitive since this was basically already explained in the latter section)?
I was debating where to put that too but it needs to be attached to deep ocean temperatures, and deep ocean temperatures belongs in the Climate section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about atmospheric CO2 levels?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea likely due to the retreat of inland seas, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures – Not obvious why this would lead to increasing deep sea temperatures.
  • resulted in a 1.6–2.8 °C change – increase or decrease?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • mass release of methane hydrate – coming from where?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the long-term trends. Was there an increase or decrease of temperature and carbon during the Paleocene?
  • methane clathrate – link/explain?
it's linked on first mention in Paleotectonics   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but most likely about 2,500 years – verb missing?
Nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • bottom water oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) – maybe explain for better comprehensibility/accessibility.
changed to "oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) in the deep sea"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Cerrejón Formation – link and state where it is located already at first mention, not only at the second.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extinction of dinosaurs and megaherbivores – this implies that dinosaurs where not megaherbivores; what other megaherbivores died out?
changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early Paleocene, there was an increase in herb diversity – sure, but most groups should have shown increased diversity after the mass extinction? So this doesn't tell us anything new.
condensed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is now Castle Rock – where is it located?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • middle-Paleocene – why the "-"?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "recovery section", I wonder if it makes more sense to have the last paragraph as the first.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous – that view is outdated (see, e.g., [6])
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though mammals could sporadically venture out in daytime (cathemerality) roughly 10 million years before the extinction event, they only became strictly diurnal (active in the daytime) sometime after. – That can't be said for the whole group; species will always differ. These are only trends.
added "some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the largest known Mesozoic mammal, Repenomamus robustus, which reached about 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in length and 12–14 kg (26–31 lb) in weight–comparable to the modern day Virginia opossum–may have operated on the same trophic level as some small dinosaurs. – I would greatly shorten here, as it seems a bit off-topic. Also, the trophic level depends on if you are a herbivore or carnivore; both dinosaurs and Mesozoic mammals were both depending on the species, so this does not make so much sense in my opinion.
shortened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and dental complexity correlates to a broader range in diet – I doubt that this is the case, I expect the opposite. What the paper you are citing says is "disparity of dental complexity", which is quite a different thing. "Disparity" means morphological variability; it means that if there are species with simple dentition and species with complex dentition in a group, the range in diet will be greater.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably due to competition – competitive replacement has been proposed for a number of groups (including dinosaurs) but according to recent studies (e.g., Benton, 2014) seems to be quite rare. Would at least change to "possibly".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though mammals had probably already begun to diversify – you mean "therian mammals"?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their extinction allowed flying birds to attain greater size, such as pelagornithids and pelecaniformes. However, the Paleocene pelagornithid Protodontopteryx was quite small compared to later members, with a wingspan of about 1 m (3.3 ft), comparable to a gull. – Last sentence contradicts your first statement, it is unclear what the point is. Why not give an example of one of greater size (as indicated by the first sentence), or isn't there any?
A lot of the large ones are known from the absolute beginning of the Eocene, which means that they evolved in the Paleocene, but the Paleocene bird fossil record isn't very expansive. The source says "Strikingly, within 10 million years of the extinction of the pterosaurs, marine birds diversified. Tropicbirds and the first large marine soaring birds, the Pelagornithidae, appeared in marine ecosystems"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the late Paleocene snake Titanoboa grew to over 13 m (43 ft) long, the longest snake ever recorded.[120] – This sentence seems a bit attached to its paragraph, without connection (though the "Further" seems to imply one).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are giving a lot of size estimates, focusing on the largest of the clades. It makes sense when the significance of body size is also discussed (e.g., for the recovery after the mass extinction), and this is what you often do, so I would say that is ok. But I wonder what the relevance of the size estimates is for the crocodilians you give.
just to remain consistent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of just giving size estimates, first appearances could be more in the focus. Some modern day families have their origins in the Paleocene, such as the true toads.[129] – The other families could be mentioned as well, this is important imo.
  • representing nearly half of all vertebrate life – in terms of diversity, biomass, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the order of groups should be inverted (Invertebrates first, and mammals last). This is the standard elsewhere, and can also help the reader with following the article, as you are going up the food chain, not down.
I figured mammals should go first because that's the most famous group in the Paleocene, and then birds being the 2nd most famous group, and then my brain just ordered them into when the group evolved in reverse order. I feel like mammals and birds should stay the first 2 sections given they are the most talked about, but to the rest I have no feelings about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the same pre-extinction abundance – why "the same", and not simply "to their pre-extinction abundance"?
just to make sure you don't think "pre-extinction abundance, and then some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the corrections so far (you could, in general, save some reviewer time by considering comments a bit more carefully; e.g., zombie taxa is indeed not correctly linked). The article has shaped up nicely. I wonder, however, if the article is complete already. It certainly has balance issues still (as mentioned, loads on oceanography but geologic events are, if at all, only briefly mentioned). Thinking about it, I would argue that sedimentology is missing completely. What are the major sedimentary basins at the time? I would also mention the most important fossil lagerstätten (also do not forget about amber). Any meteor craters that formed during that time? Another thing that is missing completely are resources such as oil and coal that formed during the time. Yes, sounds boring at first, but also tells a lot about the environment at the time (coal swamps etc.). I see quite some possibilities for expansion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Important formations are kind of interspersed throughout the article (like Castle Rock) but I guess there're more I should add, so I'll get to that, but I did overlook meteor craters and minerals, so I'll be working on a new section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How's the Sedimentology section looking? Is there anything else you want to see? Bear in mind important formations are strewn about the article so discussion on their importance is organized into relevant sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking great, don't see issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe put the "Stratigraphy" section into chronological order? I mean, discussing the history of the Selandian and Thanetian before discussing the Itzurun section? The whole section jumps quite a bit (e.g., back to Itzurun in the last paragraph; the reader might have already forgotten what Itzurun is at this point).
It is in order, it's just kinda weird because the modern GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian are both Itzurun, so it goes: Paleocene → history of Danian/Danian → Selandian/Thanetian → history of Selandian → history of Thanetian. It should say what the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian is today before going off about their histories to avoid confusion and provide context without too much repetition, and further discussion about Itzurun needs to be paired with the former. It was more straightforward with the Danian because all the relevant information could fit neatly into a single paragraph, so we can immediately move from "this is how it was, and this is why it's something else now". I was debating how to do this exactly, and I figured this was the best way to avoid "this it how it was; for details how it is now, see below"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • ICS chart 2017. You could update to the 2019 version at [7]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The K-Pg extinction event, brought on by an asteroid impact". This is a bit too definite. There is still a significant minority who argue that the onset of Deccan volcanism pre-dates the impact. See for example [8].
I forgot to put in the Deccan Traps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Paleocene, the continents continued moving towards their present positions." This reads as if you are in the middle of an exposition which has already explained the continents' positions in the Cretaceous and their movements. It needs re-writing. I suggest starting with the position of the continents 66 million years ago as at [9] North America, Eurasia and Africa connected, as were South America, Antarctica and Australia. India was moving towards Asia. I doubt whether you need to mention the Rockies and certainly not joining of the Americas which only occurred 3 million years ago.
When the Americas joined is not common knowledge, and the uplift of a major mountain range is definitely important   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extinction event caused a floral and faunal turnover of species, with previously abundant species being replaced by previously uncommon ones. With a global average temperature of about 24–25 °C (75–77 °F), compared to 14 °C (57 °F) in more recent times, the Earth had a greenhouse climate without permanent ice sheets at the poles." This is confusing as the first sentence is about the immediate effects of the extinction, and the second sentence reads as if it is still about the effects but is presumably about the long term climate of the Paleocene. The comparison with temperatures today is misleading as it implies that the period was unusually hot, whereas we are living in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started about 34 million years ago. Having no ice at the poles and much higher sea levels is the normal state of the earth, although it would be catastrophic for us. I do not know whether the Paleocene was hotter than average, but you would need to compare with the long term average over the history of the earth.
The earth shifts from greenhouse climate to icehouse climate. The Cambrian to mid-Carboniferous was a greenhouse, the late-Carboniferous to the Permian was an icehouse, the Triassic to Early Eocene was a greenhouse, and then from then to present is an icehouse (that's why it says "Earth had a greenhouse climate")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The earth shifts in climate, but less than 100 million out of 540 million years of the Phanerozoic eon was icehouse. Most readers will think that saying that the Paleocene had a greenhouse climate means that it was unusully hot, and I think that it is important to explain that this is not correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added "like in the preceding Mesozoic"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK although I would prefer "like most of the Phanerozoic". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, there were forests worldwide–including at the poles–with low species richness in regards to plant life." Was the low richness due to the forests or the extinction - or both?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments (and one additional remark above)
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that the PETM was short lived.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a mass extinction of 30–50% of benthic foraminifera–planktonic species which are used as bioindicators of the health of a marine ecosystem–the largest in the last 90 million years". This implies that the PETM and Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event foraminiferal extinctions were both greater than at the K-Pg. I think you need better authority for this than a (presumably) non-peer reviewed book chapter. See for example [10].

"one of the largest in the Cenozoic"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Itzurun beach by the Basque town of Zumaia, 43.3006°N 2.2594°W, was used to define the Selandian and Thanetian". I found this confusing as you have previously discussed boundaries but this is on the whole stages. Perhaps "define the sequence of rocks in the Selandian and Thanetian".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Danian deposits are sequestered into the Aitzgorri Limestone Formation, and the Selandian and early Thanetian into the Itzurun Formation." I think "sequestered" is wrong as it means "separated from". I would say "divided" even though it is repeated in the next sentence.
Well it is sequestered there because somebody decided to group all these rocks into something called the Aitzgorri Limestone Formation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "why the GSSP was moved. Today, the beginning of the Selandian is marked by the appearances of the planktonic Fasciculithus tympaniformis, Neochiastozygus perfectus, and Chiasmolithus edentulus". You do not say that the Selandian GSSP was moved to Zumaia.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the former components of Laurasia". You need to spell out what Laurasia was composed of. The wiki article is unclear, but according to Britannica at [11] North America, Europe and Asia apart from India.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beringia (65.5 and 58 mya)" Presumably between 65.5 and 58 mya?
no   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Turgai route connecting Europe with Asia (which were separated by the Turgai Strait at this time)" I am not sure what this means. They were connected but separated?
changed to "which were otherwise separated"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in the mass release of carbon". Surely of methane. Carbon on its own is a solid.
It says things like "2000 Gt of carbon release" so I'm pretty they're just saying methane-derived carbon which can form various other greenhouse gases   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which occurs at the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic Peninsula" I think "in the North Atlantic near the North Pole" would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is largely unknown how global currents could have affected global temperature. The formation of the Northern Component Waters by Greenland in the Eocene" I found this confusing. Is this whole paragraph on the Eocene and if so why?
so you can understand the implications of not having AMOC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Antarctic Circumpolar Current–which traps cold water around the continent and prevents warm equatorial water from entering–had not yet formed, preventing Antarctica from freezing and impacting global climate". Dr Caroline Lear in this lecture said that the theory that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current caused the freezing of the Antarctic is no longer accepted. A source may be [12] but as this is off the topic of the article you might just be less definite on the cause.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To maintain a greenhouse climate, some positive feedbacks must have been active in order to compensate for the ineffectiveness of CO2" This does not sound right to me. Presumably it is not that CO2 is ineffective, just that the temperature was higher than CO2 on its own would cause.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " For the following half million years, the carbon isotope gradient–a difference in the C13/C12 ratio between surface and deep ocean water, causing carbon to cycle into the deep sea–may have shut down, termed a "Strangelove ocean", indicating low productivity". This sentence has so many sub-clauses that it loses its way and is difficult to follow. Also the carbon isotope gradient is a sympton not a cause of the changes in the process of carbon cycling.
So how would you write it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The diversification of mammals had a profound effect on parasitic insects, namely the evolution of bats, which have more ectoparasites than any other known mammal or bird." This seems an exaggeration. All mammal evolution must have affected the evolution of parasitic insects.
Yes, but to a smaller extent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 83 has a doi error message.
don't know what to do about that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good article. There is an excessive concentration on North America. The almost complete absence of information on Asia and Africa is obviously due to lack of English language sources, but the very limited information on Europe seems surprising. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the research is done in America. I vaguely remember some of the sources talking about a surprising lack of research about Paleocene Europe either in reference to plants or fish or something   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paleocene/archive1&oldid=928684350"