Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ediacaran biota/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Ediacaran biota

Ediacaran biota

edit

I've just re-written this page and am very keen for any constructive criticism!

I'm aware that it weighs in at around 41kb - in way of defence, around 10k of these characters are used in a work-around to reduce the size of the Table of Contents, and in the extensive referencing; I feel that the article length is about right for such a large and significant topic.
It'd be nice to push this forwards to Featured Article status... I've grown very fond of 'my baby' and would welcome some more critical outside input!
A main concern is that a suitable level of established fact has been conveyed in a very turbulent and rapidly changing field, with all views given due weight (for historical or scientific interest).

Verisimilus 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment (I'll look through things later). I think the default table of contents is fine; no need to mess around with all those tables. CloudNine 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My other reason for wanting a fixed ToC was that hiding a flexible one sent the timeline into the images in the morphology section and caused chaos; I still feel that the full listing is overly cumbersome if it includes sub-units (which there's currently no way to disable). But I see your point in so far as it'll make any major edits harder to integrate. Shall contemplate what to do... Verisimilus 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that removing the TOC table is a good idea. Future editors who move, consolidate, or rename sections will not only have to make changes in two places, they'll have to understand wiki and html formatting. That's a maintenance nightmare, and the mistakes in the current version also suggest that it's too complex (e.g. == Interpretations == is followed by ==== Cnidarians ====, which skips a step; and === Disappearance === is not in the TOC yet its subheading ==== Preservation ==== is).
  Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I also recommend figuring out a way to move the cites from the transcluded tables into the article proper. It's counterintuitive to have to search related pages to fix a reference, especially with tables that are only used in a single article.
  Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


| Pat 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated the default ToC. Is there any way to stop it becoming 'hidden'? It wreaks havoc with the layout otherwise! Verisimilus 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Charnia image and the table are competing for vertical space. Uploading a horizontal version of the Charnia photo might help (it would also reduce the 10-line caption; see WP:CAP), though I'm not sure it would be as attractive. Moving it might work, as well; the Preservation section is fairly empty, and the image of a volcano is kind of a stretch.
I'd rather keep it near the sea pen, for ease of comparison. Agree that the long caption's not ideal. Maybe the solution is to use a wider (uncropped) picture - though this would reduce the clarity of the image. I'll think on this one too. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done | Verisimilus 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Separately, since hierarchal article titles are depreciated (see WP:NAME), Ediacaran biota/List should probably be moved to List of Ediacaran biota.
  Done. Moved to List of Ediacaran genera. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also expanded the intro. For a reasonably hefty article with a decent-sized table of contents, it was pretty short and didn't provide sufficient context (see WP:LEAD). But I'm not an expert, so please double check and make sure I didn't make any subtle mistakes. In particular, it might be good to change the dates from the Period to the range during which the fauna was found (which overlaps the Cambrian). Are the earliest from the Doushantuo formation?
You write well! I agree it's quite short compared to other articles; I may even look at expanding it further. The oldest embryos are from the Doushantuo but they may be the embryos of anything - i.e. animals as opposed to Ediacarans. The Drook Fm. is the earliest confirmed finding of an Ediacaran. I think the dates of the fossils, rather than the periods, would be more useful. Verisimilus 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. | Pat 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Pat 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine

edit

A few comments:

  • History section is short, and full of two or three line paragraphs. Same with the Morphology section. These could do with expansion or removal of section headings.
  Done | Expanded | Verisimilus T 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to split the further reading section into a 'See also' and 'External links' section, as well as a 'Further reading' section.
  Done | Verisimilus 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trace Fossils -> Trace fossils in heading surely?
  Done | Verisimilus 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'll add more as I go through the article. CloudNine 08:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verisimilus - Reply to Cloudnine
edit

Thanks for your input. I've split down the further reading section, but I'm not sure that it really adds anything other than clutter to the article. It's probably standards I suppose... but I liked it better all together (-:

I'm not sure which route to take with the history and morphology sections. I envisioned the main article to be a brief overview to introduce the reader to the biota, and feel that in situ expansion may make the article too long.

There's no harm in expanding the article; the more information, the better. CloudNine 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd really like to have a separate article for each sub-heading - enough ink's been spilt to warrant them - and a concise summary on the main page, but that would mean a lot more writing!

Pat

edit

A quick comment:

  Done | Verisimilus 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done | Verisimilus 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of quotation marks is inconsistent (partly my fault :). Surprisingly, WP:MOS has a blanket recommendation instead of leaving it up to regional preferences.
  Done | Verisimilus 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the intro says: "[Ediacaran biota] may yield useful insights into the processes controlling modern ecosystems and evolution". Needs a source, and it should be covered in more detail later in the article.
  • The interpretation section is a good overview, but it only gives a vague sense of chronology. Adding some dates might help indicate the 4–5 decade span beween the first stumbling attempts to jam them into the Linnean box, and modern perspectives.
  Done | Verisimilus T 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Doing... I'm still planning ta add a separate article about this, extracts of which could feature on the main page.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vendobionta ... phylum or kingdom? I believe it started as a phylum and was promoted to kingdom, but I'm dealing with sloppy secondary sources not primary ones.
    • The difference is purely semantic. It's unarguably a clade (by Seilacher's definition, anyway); the only difference between a kingdom and a phylum is a fuzzy line drawn by human observers... Maybe I should look into the words, although it doesn't affect the science.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it should say "clade" not kingdom/phylum. But Seilacher repeatedly uses Kingdom and Phylum in his descriptions (e.g. [1]). | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done Thinking about it, there's more to it than pure semantics. If all animals are descended from Vendobionta, it's a Kingdom; if all Vendobionta are animals, it's a phylum. If no animals are Vendobionta, it could be a kingdom (or a phylum). The language used in the literature varies... Verisimilus T 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence or three describing microbial mats towards the top of the article would be useful. They're extensively referenced.
  Done by expanding preservation section and moving to start | Verisimilus T 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The modes of life paragraph (the duplicated one) seems out of place. Either spawning a new section, or a transition sentence and renaming the section to "Significance and palaeoecology" would help.
Good idea. I originally had it in a section of its own with some other bits but integrated the rest into the article (they were quite repetitive), and couldn't quite work out where to place that...| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "modes of life" also aren't defined, or linked. It's just a bunch of random numbers with nothing concrete. Families? Ecological niches? Feeding methods?
A combination of the latter two. I'll write out a fuller explanation.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the history section could be expanded.
  Done | By enough? | Verisimilus T 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skeletal"? Vertebrate? Not arthropod?
Arthropods have exoskeletons   | Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people have never heard of endoskeletons :p. It's unclear. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Skeletonised"?
  • There isn't any real discussion of how the Ediacaran fossils are distinguished from earlier specimens, except for the giant protists comment. Could use a couple sentences.
  Done Verisimilus T 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with organisms being preserved in sandy beds containing internal bedding". Hasn't it been suggested that the quilted types have a sand-like internal structure? If so, that's unclear.
Hmm. Looks like I was thinking of Psammocorallia. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the footnote in the section heading.
  • Likewise. Since the link's repeated in the sentence afterwards, could we omit it? We'd probably have to attribute it more clearly to Glaessner in the text immediately following.| Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done or fixed at least. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

  Doing... - will include when re-write history. Thanks. | Verisimilus 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No mention of sponges?
I don't consider Ediacaran biota, as they exist today - but agree worth mentioning. I'll include.
  Done | Verisimilus T 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the trace fossils still considered probable worms? How about the possible mollusc scrapes?
Kimberellagenic? I've not head much about these, will have to investigate further.
  Done - Martin, Grazhdankin et al., 2000, contained details.
  • The origin and disappearance sections covers the general issues, but very little specifics. It might be useful to describe the specific early and late examples, like the controversial Twitya finds, possible early arthropod burrows, and Cambrian examples like Nimbia.
  • Is the kotlin crisis still worth mentioning?
  • If FA status is a goal, get rid of the red links. Either create stubs or un-bracket them.

I may be away for a while. | Pat 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, by the way. Enough of those niggling technical details have been taken care of that the rest of the article is coming into resolution. The coverage is appropriate; at times it feels superficial, but that's an artifact of the length of the article and the breadth of the topic. All the major issues are covered, at least briefly, and no sections go into excessive detail. And IMO at least, "temporal" is fine. Clarity is important, vigorous prose is important, but this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. We can exploit the richness of the language; this may be the era of the nitpicking reference, but brilliant prose is still important. Jargon, on the other hand, can be a problem. Ediacaran biota is undeservedly obscure, but this article is still the gateway to a fascinating and surprisingly important range of lifeforms, so it needs to be accessible. It's actually pretty good at providing context, wikilinks, and in situ explanations, and I'm strongly opposed to simply removing the essential terminology or turning the article into a tutorial, but there are still a couple areas where the ecological and geological terminology is a bit dense. | Pat 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for all your dedicated proof-reading and editing over the last couple of days - it's very much appreciated! It means a lot to have someone else taking an interest in the article (-:
I'm away for a couple of days so will have reduced input for the forseeable, but will hopefully return with fresh enthusiasm! | Verisimilus 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of green ticks - I'm happy with the way the article's looking now. I'm thinking of nominating it for GA - any last comments to help it on its way? Verisimilus T 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ediacaran_biota/archive1&oldid=141209792"