Talk:Ediacaran biota/Archive 2

message: Origin
* Frankly, this whole section lacks focus and is probably only really comprehensible if you know what it's getting at already. Needs organised in a more logical manner, with less presumption of pre-extant knowledge, e.g. Don't presume people know the age of the earth, explain about the early development of unicellular life, as that explains why the delay in multicellular life is odd, etc. 
Disappearance
*Lacks an introduction: It leaps straight into theories about their disappearance, but doesn't actually talk about them disappearing first. Also, consider removing some or all of the subsection headers. 
*Subsection "Preservation bias" A little oddly written, but that may just be an impression from the use of that dramatic dash  ("— unless such assemblages represent an environment never occupied by the Ediacaran biota.") "Lagerstätten" is a very obscure word, and should be explained.  | I agree that the dash is a little overdramatic, I'd've preferred a normal dash but that's against the MOS...Verisimilus T 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA - Continuing

message: What is the meaning of the edit summary "de-POV ստատէմէնտ"  What language is that, anyway? Adam Cuerden talk 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tch. The lovely university computers change the input language when you press Shift and Alt without an S or P... so whenever I'm just about to save and realise I've not put in a suitable edit summary, it changes to Armenian! I usually catch myself in time but that one slipped away... Verisimilus T 12:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have to ask 

message: "although the possibility that it represents the diagenetic infilling of an egg-sac or acritarch has not yet been considered in print"
I know what you're getting at, it's a fair critique, but we probably need to wait for the research to be published (or at least have a researcher's webpage we can link to - if the researcher's notable, as it appears he is, his speculations are worth mentioning. But we can't just bring something up, then promptly say that we can provide no evidence for it - it looks like WP:OR, even if I know, from the old reference, that it's actually an unpublished belief of a notable scientist.  Adam Cuerden talk 12:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reasons for this restriction on Wikipedia, by the way. Sure, you can be trusted, but I don't think everyone can. In days Wikipedia would grind to a halt from the most surprising personal communications...    Adam Cuerden talk 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now found it in print (and referenced); Google Scholar didn't flag the article correctly... My faith in science has been restored, I was getting a bit worried that something so blatantly false could go so long unchallenged! Bengtson and Budd to the rescue, thank goodness. Verisimilus T 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I have to admit I don't know enough about microfossils to really adjudicate on these: Indeed, the terms "diagenetic filling" and "acritarch" are not ones I'm familiar with (we ought to simplify or explain those...) How big are these supposed embryos, anyway? It doesn't actually say. As I said, I'm an undergraduate with an interest - I can point out what seems odd to me, and probably identify POV, but please don't ask my opinion on the grand debates without a lot of time to read up. Adam Cuerden talk 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor problem 

message: Could we have a paragraph or two, fairly early on, perhaps even before most of the current introduction, briefly putting the Ediacaran itself in context? There's references to the Cambrian, Cryogenian, and so on, but we don't actually explainn the Cambrian explosion or snowball earth - we're just presuming people know about them. Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what hyper-links are for? :-) Seriously, though, that's a good point. Not everybody is willing to jump around in links to find out what a term means. And suitable hyper-links are not always available, as some of the terms used are not well covered in WP, or even in other general interest sources. I recently struggled with making "symmetry of gliding reflection" (as it applies to some Ediacaran fossils) more intelligible to the general readership. -- Donald Albury 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye, the early geology articles are pretty bad. I had a bit of a go at Cryogenian, but my Geology knowledge is weak, and I didn't get far. I think we basically just need to explain the Cryogenian hyperglacation, and explain the Cambrian explosion that sprung out of the Ediacaran, with a quick overview of the Ediacaran in between. But I don't feel knowledgable enough to write it.  Adam Cuerden talk 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On my to do list. Theoretically, I should be able to do that with my eyes closed. It's probably not going to be that easy...Verisimilus T 12:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for new section 

message: Can we do something about the timeline? It's kind of ugly-looking, like the fonts are badly pixelated... Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to do anything whilst retaining an easily editable wiki syntax - which I feel is vital given the certainty that details'll change significantly as time goes on. Unless I were to write a new "timeline" template.... *lighting up of eyes in slightly manic fashion* Verisimilus T 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh. Oh, dear. Adam Cuerden talk 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Did some more editing. I've changed "sandbars in the mouths of a delta's distributaries" to "sandbars in a river delta". This is certainly simpler, but it's not quite as specific. change it back if you think this removes too much information.
:The two environments are subtly different - one is marine, one is freshwater. Verisimilus T 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. What about "sandbars at the mouth of a river delta"? Adam Cuerden talk 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a source! Adam Cuerden talk 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I might have to look into some of Narbonne's stuff to clarify properly. On it. Verisimilus T 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the original: It looks like that's right. "In the simplest case, a bulb seated with the basal protuberance in clay, suffers burial under a layer of sand at least as thick as the exposed height of the bulb. Collapse or decay of a hypothetical upper surface would allow sand to cast the basal impression in the underlying clay" Adam Cuerden talk 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure. The claim is based on the assumption that they do not have an embryonic stage; if it's proven that they did, it's invalid. I suppose that the claim is that they don't have an embryonic stage, and the (a?) logical conclusion is that they're not animals. Verisimilus T 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. But at the moment, we state their lack of embryonic stages as a fact, is this definitely true, or is it a presumption of McMenamin that we have to mark as such? Adam Cuerden talk 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nama-type assemblage