Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Chicxulub crater

edit
Notifications
Notified: WikiProject Geology, talk page notification (none given)
Noting for User:Hemiauchenia the additional notifications to: WP Mexico, WP Astronomy, WP Dinosaurs, WP Extinction, WP Palaeontology SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I will also notify (from the tools) these editors who have been recently active on the article Peter M. Brown and Vsmith (User:Hemiauchenia please note that the goal of FAR is to cast a wide net to hopefully bring in editors who may be interested in improving the article, hence the FAR instructions encouraging the use of the tools). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified User:Iskander1317, who has made some recent substantial contributions to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All set now (when you notify on your own behalf, you don't have to add your name to the subst, by the way). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, please notify the other WikiProjects listed on the talk page and major contributors such as the FAC nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC nominator has already been notified. None of the other Wikiprojects are really relevant as far as the article content goes. Feel free to notify the other projects and major contributiors as you see fit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia the notifications have not been completed. I was setting up to do them for you, but there are bigger issues with this nomination. First, there was no talk page notification of a pending FAR. Second, when you added the FAR to WP:URFA/2020A, you might have noticed that David Fuchs had indicated a willingness to work on this article. And yet, Fuchs is not noticed. Did you ping them before the nomination? My recommendation would be to put this nomination on hold if David Fuchs is still intending to work on the article, so for now, I have not completed the missing notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you do a FAR nomination, please use the subst'd suggestion in the FAR instructions, which helps assure that interested editors understand the process when arriving here. (See my addition here.) In this case, you can notify by adding the following, with a heading, on relevant pages: {{subst:FARMessage|Chicxulub crater}} ~~~~ The FAR instructions also tell you how to use the tools to locate interested editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs does not WP:OWN this highly trafficked article that he worked on over a decade ago. I am the author of a substantial proportion of the articles current content. The whole idea that a non FA quality article should be kept at FA because somebody made a vague promise to work on it is silly. Either it is FA quality or it is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hemiauchenia:, the goal of FAR is to find editors that are willing to bring FAs back to FA standards, similar to how your edits earlier in January brought the article closer to FA standards. The talk page notice in step 1 is to find out if any talkpage watchers are willing to bring the article back to standards. Informing Wikiprojects, even if they are not really relevant to the article, is important because editors who watch those Wikiprojects might be willing to improve the article. Can you ensure that the Wikiprojects are notified? If no one steps forward to improve the article, then it might be delisted, but I think the delisting process won't start unless Wikiprojects are notified. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Hemiauchenia had followed FAR standard practice so I'd have had a heads-up before this, not to mention following basic courtesy and notifying me when filing the FAR rather than me having to hear about it secondhand. As is, I'm not going to be able to access my research databases for the next few weeks but should be able to work on it after then. Wretchskull also expressed in interest in working on the article, so I don't think it makes sense to close down the FAR over procedural missteps, though I hope Hemiauchenia can learn to be less needlessly confrontational and more collaborative in the future. A more detailed list of areas that need improvement beyond a single question of energy values and references to recent literature would help in focusing on areas of improvement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs if you are suggesting the FAR remain active, the remaining notifications will need to be done. If you prefer the Coords put it on hold to give you a few months, you should say so, and then the remaining notifications won't be neeeded, yet. Please let this page know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria SandyGeorgia I'm fine with it staying open. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, make a post on Fuch's talkpage after I was notified, notifying them of the nomination, which automatically pings them. I was unaware that a post had been made on his talkpage discussing the article the exact same day I nominated the page, my apologies. This article receives thousands of views every day, those "few months" likely mean hundreds of thousands of readers, this article should be a priority. I intend to notify the other Wikiprojects in due course. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now notified all relevant Wikiprojects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot locate the small error that resulted after notifications were not done; don't know how to fix this now, so I have removed all smalling. Notifications are now done, but I will leave fixing of the bulk now on this page to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - Isn't this only supposed to be opened after issues are brought up at the talk page of the article? Step one at the instructions says "Raise issues at the article's talk page... Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review". I think this might be premature. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did bring up some issues on the talkpage of the article three weeks ago Talk:Chicxulub_crater#Unreliable_sources. Nobody responded. My intent for calling for a FAR is a kick up the arse to get the article into shape. I don't want to see the article delisted. I just want it to actually be FA quality. I am happy to put the nomination on hold for a few weeks if that helps the article get into shape and prevents delisting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over a decade since it was promoted and the article now has a number of issues. I am not sure it satisifes WP:FACR criteria 1.a,b,c,d, or 2,a,b. I have cleaned up a lot of the articles content, and the scope of the previous separate Chicxulub impactor article has been merged into this one, because there is not enought that can be said about the impactor to justify separation. One of the issues I have is that the energy values given for the impact are based on an unpublished preprint, and ideally should be replaced with a more reliable scholarly source. It's also not clear that the article comprehensively covers the recent literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more thorough review of the article:

  • The discovery section seems fine, no need for major changes.
  • The opening section of the "Impact specifics" seems fine (largely because I wrote it), however, it doesn't cover the nature of what is known in impact geology as the "target rocks", which in this case were marine carbonates and anhydrite, which should be included. There is some discussion of it in other sections, but there is in fact no mention of anhydrite anywhere in the article, despite its importance in recent literature.
  • The second section of "Impact effects" doesn't cover a lot of the recent literature. Some of the impact specifics are cited to interviews in The Dinosaurs: Death of the Dinosaur a 1990 PBS documentary. This is not an ideal source and should really be replaced with modern scholarship. Others are based on the thirty year old paper "Chicxulub Crater; a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico", which should also ideally be replaced with more recent literature.
  • "Astronomical origin of impactor" seems mostly fine (because I wrote about half of it), this was merged from the redundant Chicxulub impactor article.
  • "Chicxulub and mass extinction" fails to mention any reason as to why the impact is thought to have caused an extinction, which seems like a major omission.
  • No strong opinions on the "Expedition 364" section, though it does seem large relative to the rest of the article.
  • The current reference style is a bad hybrid between visual editor automatic citations and harvard style footnotes, this should be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of referencing, I'm fine with adjusting the style—since people do drive-by additions and rarely follow Harvard, I think it makes most sense to collapse the notes and refs into one section, use everything in ref tags w/ citation templates and if necessary use {{rp}} for specific pagination where necessary outside of the citation. I would think at least for the ease of improving things shoving current citations into a reflist in the references section would be best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the Expedition 364 section that it just feels like recent information not properly contextualized and integrated into the article, so I've started trimming it down and moved it into the geology/morphology section where I think it makes more sense.
Working on migrating refs and tagging some that don't appear to be used currently in the process for evaluation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've migrated sources from the bibliography to the references section, so everything now uses {{reflist}}; some ref formatting for missing fields/differences in formatting still needs to be done. There remains a number of phantom sources left over in the bibliography; some can probably safely be jettisoned but I will need to go through them to double-check. Once that's done I will get back to prose cleanup; seems like editors were busy adding in facts that were redundant to other parts of the article, so a lot in the "mass extinction" section can be cut or recontextualized. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, I've substantially revised and slimmed down the extinction section, and tried to reduce redundancies with other sections throughout. While there's still work to do in terms of formatting refs, copyediting, and pulling a few more refs to source stuff I don't think was adequately or clearly referenced previously/cleanup tags, wanted to check in. I think the article is better weighted towards more recent sources and incorporating them better into the flow of the article. Thoughts? Additionally User:Wretchskull if you had any thoughts would be good to get more than one opinion here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great now, but I have a few comments:
  • Per MOS:SEEALSO, links given in the body should not be mentioned in see also. Remove Iridium anomaly. List of impact craters on Earth is already linked, but because it isn't displayed verbatim, and because I'm certain readers would click such a link, I'll let you keep it if you want to.
  • If you could remove the three refs in the lede and incorporate them in the body that would be great.
  • There are still two citation needed tags. Have you searched anything on internet archive, google books, google scholar, the Wikilibrary, etc.?
  • Ref 69 uses the deprecated parameter "|lay-url=".
  • Perhaps link "million years ago"?
Thank you for your work! Wretchskull (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been a signficiant improvement. Another issue I have is that we are continuing to use newspaper articles such as the BBC for the effects of the impact, when these really should be sourced to journal articles, see cf. WP:MEDPOP. In particular there appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC sourcing, where in the BBC article it says gypsum was injected into the atmosphere, but recent journal sources say the evaporite component was almost entirely anhydrite (which is effectively an anhydrous form of gypsum), maybe that is just semantic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wretchskull I believe I've addressed your concerns except for the lay-url thing (there's some disagreement on whether it's gonna' stay deprecated so I'll leave it for now.) Hemiauchenia, I'm fine with using the the journals to double-verify what's in the news articles (the specific example you pull I think is a distinction without a difference for our purposes, but c'est la vie), but the main issues with relying on them solely (besides starting to get into the weeds of minor stuff that I don't think a general wikipedia article should bother with, see the aforementioned 'is gypsum 100% technically the right word') is that they're really not set up for giving useful soundbites to quote versus specific facts and figures. The books and longform journalism articles in the article right now are much better at giving a broad overview, so I'd be reticent to cut them.
On that subject, the article currently is structured with explaining how Penfield &c. discovered the impact crater, its description, effects, and then talking more about the extinction theory. I'm wondering if that's a weird way of structuring it? Versus starting with the Alvarez hypothesis in 1979/80, discussing the search for the crater generally (Alvarez's book gives some useful info there that's not included at present) and then going to what is currently the opening of the article. Perhaps that level of context makes more sense for the overall structure of the article and the narrative? It also then allows us to more directly talk about the effects and why that was obviously a disaster for life/cause of the K-Pg extinction in the effects section itself, versus a final section partially restating some of the details from before. Since you felt that the section was sort of weird to begin with Hemiauchenia maybe this gets around the problem entirely? (On the other hand, I do kind of like ending it with the declarative bits about why the crater is so important, but I think a lot of that stuff about being accepted by the scientific community would still end up at the end of the article regardless.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and adjusted it. The final paragraph feels slightly out of place but it fits much better with everything else I think it's an overall improvement. Also expanded the discovery section a bit in the process. As for the newspaper/news sourcing, I can be double-checked but I think most have a corresponding journal citation to verify their more technical claims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Excellent work! By the way, this edit seems rather contentious, as it substantially alters a significant figure about the speed of the impactor; I can't fault the latter source added, though. Also, "perhaps" (in the same clause) feels a little unencyclopedic, and I would probably replace it with "approximately/about/circa/most likely" or anything else. Wretchskull (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The section "Geology and geomorphology" seems to combine the two topics, without doing a particularly good job on either. There's also quite a bit of geological information in the preceding "Impact specifics" section, so a reorganisation may be in order. Another issue is that there are a number of statements in both sections that seem to be based on a misreading of the cited sources e.g. "Vaporized rock, including sulfur-rich gypsum from the shallow coastal waters, was injected into the atmosphere.", whereas the importance of the shallow water is that most of the impactor's energy was spent in melting and deforming rock rather than displacing water, which would have been the case in much deeper water, allowing the anhydrite-bearing Lower Cretaceous rocks towards the base of the 3 km sequence of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks to be vaporized. Again, in the same paragraph, "... determined that the impactor landed in deeper water than previously assumed, which may have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.", which also seems to be suggesting that the sulfur is coming from the water somehow, whereas in this case, it's the increased water vapor reacting with the vaporized anhydrite that would have caused more of the aerosols to form, according to the cited source. The explanation of the formation of cenotes (2nd para Geology and morphology section) due to there being a "water basin" is less than clear, nor why the groundwater created all those caves and cenotes where they did - Hildebrand et al. 1995 link them to slump faults along the crater rim. Much is made of the "pink granite" in the 4th para., although its colour doesn't seem very important. Undoubtedly the granite has moved upwards due to the impact, from a deeper level, although how deep is unclear - it's just part of the underlying basement. The section lacks a clear description of the impactites that the various boreholes have encountered or how they are thought to be distributed around the crater. There's no mention of suevite in the article, although it's ubiquitous in the cited sources. The final sentence states that "The post-impact tsunamis were sufficient to lay down the largest known layered bed of sand, around 100 m deep and separated by grain size, directly above the peak ring." That's not what the cited source says, it states "in the hours that followed (the impact) ocean tsunamis dumped huge amounts of sandy sediment in the giant hole in Earth.", mentioning no thickness, no claim to be the largest known and saying that they were deposited in the crater not on the peak ring. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-section now added. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mikenorton are you done with the substantial content changes? I'm back with access to my databases so I want to go through and spot-check stuff now that the content has shifted but don't want o go down that road if things are still substantially changing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been attempting to rewrite the "Geology" section but it's slow going - see here. Sorry to be so slow at this. I think that we also need a section on "Investigations" to understand the data that's been used, particularly the seismic reflection data that's been acquired and the boreholes that have been drilled since the identification of the crater. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought is that's getting way too into the weeds here for a general overview of the crater? Stuff about individual boreholes and the like feels like it's dumping jargon no one outside of geology students or scientists are going to know or care about. Beyond that the geology starts getting into the weeds of the area rather than the crater, which I think is out of scope for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crater is a geological feature - putting more detail in about the geology hardly seems excessive to me. Where else would we put such material? Well, I've gone ahead and replaced the existing geology section and I'm now working on a a relatively short summary of the post-discovery investigations - we wouldn't even know for sure that it was a multi-ring structure if it wasn't for the seismic reflection data that's been acquired over it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While working on the article I noticed that the gravity image (File:Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg) appears to have an erroneous license as it claims that "it only contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey". Links to the original image state in contrast that "This image was constructed from gravity measurements taken by Petróleos Méxicanos beginning in 1948 in the course of petroleum exploration augmented by recent work of researchers from the Geological Survey of Canada, Athabasca University, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán." Regretfully, I think that I should start a deletion process on commons, as I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't be using it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Mikenorton is continuing to work on the article, with a huge edit to the Geology section on March 22 and others making smaller improvements. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Feel free to close this if there are no other objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia comments:

@Mikenorton and David Fuchs: I am taking a look, please review my edits.

Mikenorton as you work your way through these, don't forget the stragglers at the top! Great progress so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I'm having some trouble seeing the wood for the trees. I know that I still have a missing article to produce on seismic wide-angle reflection/refraction and a section to add to the Reflection seismology article, which will take me some days to do, am I missing something else? Mikenorton (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mikenorton, we aren't supposed to use the highlight template on FACs or FARs, as they cause template limits problems in archives, but I will temporarily highlight the unstruck, so you can more easily see what is left, and then later remove those highlights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just the section on the "Astronomical origin of the impactor" in addition to the tasks I already know about - highlights can be removed. Mikenorton (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming:

Volcanoguy I have entered quite a few comments above, but the going gets rougher towards the bottom of the article. Might you be interested in helping to finish up some of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of a help I can be given the fact that impact cratering isn't my field, but I will see what I can do regarding wikilinks and converts. Volcanoguy 02:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow; most helpful! I'm wondering if you ought to look at the top of the article as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only things I found worth wikilinking before the Morphology section were "magnetic anomalies" and "volcanism" in the Discovery section. Volcanoguy 05:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical origin of impactor

All addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other impacting body? " According to Bottke, the Chicxulub impactor was a fragment of a much larger parent body about 170 km (106 mi) across, with the other impacting body being around 60 km (37 mi) in diameter." Does this mean they suggested another body split off and hit elsewhere on Earth ? I can't tell which is which.
  • "suggesting the impactor was a member of an uncommon class of asteroids called carbonaceous chondrites, like Baptistina." But carbonaceous chondrites are discussed two paras before this statement.
  • Same here: "the ratios of platinum group metals found in marine impact layers, that the impactor was either a CM or CR carbonaceous chondrite C-type asteroid" ... but these are first discussed in the first para ... can we get all the defining stuff together when the term is first discussed?
  • What is K/Pg? "In 2010, another hypothesis was offered which implicated the newly discovered asteroid 354P/LINEAR, a member of the Flora family of asteroids, as a possible remnant cohort of the K/Pg impactor."
    Ah, I see the problem. Sometimes the article says K-Pg boundary, sometimes K–Pg, and now K/Pg. Fixed and struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the same month ... " What month? (In fact, what year?)
  • Still need the year ... "This was followed by a rebuttal published in Astronomy & Geophysics in June of the same year, ... "

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at rewriting to address those points. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since reverted by Hemiauchenia, hopefully because they're planning to redo the whole section. Mikenorton (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. What I'd like to see in the end is all of the definitional/description of carbonaceous chondrites combined to the first discussion of that (CC), in the first para, rather than spread throughout the section. As it is now, one gets bits and pieces of description of what CC is about in three different paras. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I was trying to do. I did add the month and year though. Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've lost track .. but I think we're there ?? Got the date issues solved, got all of the CC together, and sorted the different bodies ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that leaves only the 2D, 3D business above unstruck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so, well including the wide-angle bit - as I said that will likely take a week–10 days, but ping me if time is dragging on. Mikenorton (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ping in some of the other (independent) FAR reviewers, if/when Hemiauchenia is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am done with the section for the moment, mostly because I can't think of a better way to structure it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borehill drilling

  • Unclear why we care. "Sample preparation and analysis were performed in Bremen, Germany."
    This is a bit of text left over from the original "Geology" section that I brought in with the information on the MH077a Peak Ring borehole. If you think that it's excessive, I have no problem with it going. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it then,[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pemex have drilled several hydrocarbon exploration boreholes on the Yucatan peninsula, which have provided some useful data from intermittent core samples." --> Can this be instead -->
    • Intermittent core samples from hydrocarbon exploration boreholes drilled by Pemex on the Yucatán peninsula have provided some useful data. And why do we care about "intermittent"? If that is something technically meaningful, should it be linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Intermittent" here, meaning only occasional samples taken over the length of the borehole, is contrasted with "fully-cored" in the next sentence, which gives a continuous sample over the length of the borehole - this makes a huge difference in the certainty with which the borehole information can be interpreted. Mikenorton (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck, addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Where is this cited in the body of the article? "It is one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth, and the only one whose peak ring is intact and directly accessible for scientific research."SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was in the original "Geology" section before I rewrote it, although the sourcing doesn't look brilliant. I'll see what I can find and add that to the relevant part of the current "Geology" section - it shouldn't be an issue.Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed, struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issue:

  • Text: Pemex have drilled several hydrocarbon exploration boreholes on the Yucatán peninsula, which have provided some useful data from intermittent core samples. UNAM drilled a series of eight fully-cored boreholes in 1995, three of which penetrated deeply enough to reach the ejecta deposits outside the main crater rim, UNAM-5, 6 and 7. In 2001–2002, a scientific borehole was drilled near the Haciende Yaxcopoil, known as Yaxopoil-1 (or more commonly Yax-1), to a depth of 1,511 meters (4,957 ft) below the surface, as part of the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program. The borehole was cored continuously, passing through 100 meters (330 ft) of impactites.
  • Source: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/chicxulub-crater/

I thought the sourcing was done and checked here, or I would not have spent so much time on prose. Almost none of that sentence is verified by the text: now a more comprehensive check is warranted. I only discovered this because I was trying to check the spelling on Haciende, a word I have never seen in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm fairly certain that's an error. To my knowledge, there is no such word in Spanish, and Wikipedia has it as Hacienda at Yaxcopoil, and all google searches turn up the more correct Hacienda (rather than Haciende). From where comes all of that text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikenorton: re this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the issues, but have little time over this weekend. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed, struck (citation was misplaced, spelling corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, and Wretchskull: I've done all the damage I can do, with Mikenorton and Hemiauchenia; ready for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the list for me, after finishing off enzyme inhibitor and reading through Palladian architecture. I'm running chronically behind, like always. Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some thoughts below. I have not read the above, nor have I been following this FAR, so I am sorry if my comments repeat what has already been stated. I will fix minor prose things as I read, and post below what I don't think I can resolve:

  • File:Chicxulub impact - artist impression.jpg: Wow, this caption is a lot. This information is already in the article, so can this be trimmed to one sentence describing what it is?
    Most of that caption could be ditched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Discovery section is quite long. Can this be divided up with Level 3 headings?
  • "possibly through higher levels of fracturing, although the precise mechanism remains unknown." This is uncited, or the ref is in the wrong spot?
Now cited and I've removed the uncertainty, as the sources that mentioned it are not of such high quality. Mikenorton (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a well written article that, even though I am not science minded, I was able to follow. Great job everyone. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

  • Bates, Robin (series producer); Chesmar, Terri and Baniewicz, Rich (associate producers); Bakker, Robert T.; Hildebrand, Alan; Melosh, Gene; Moras, Florentine; Penfield, Glen (interviewees) (1992). The Dinosaurs! Episode 4: "Death of the Dinosaur" (TV-series). PBS Video, WHYY-TV.

It says it is a PBS Video, but it's linking to IMDb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (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_review/Chicxulub_crater/archive1&oldid=1101427245"