Talk:Paleocene/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~First up, do not start all 3 paras in lead with "The Paleocene...." - mix it up a little~~

good now? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given the size of the article, probably could have the lead a little larger with some more about dominant creatures~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term had not come into broad usage until around 1920~~ ~~- not sure why you used this tense here, should be "The term did not come into broad usage until around 1920"~~

I love the pluperfect tense User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's nice (so do I) - buut one usually uses it when there is a sentence that has taken place before the time-flow of the segment of text it is in. That is not the case here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else changed it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling "Palaeocene" with an "a", though common, would be incorrect as this would imply either a translation of "old recent"; or a derivation from "pala" and "Eocene" which would be incorrect as the prefix palæo- uses the ligature æ instead of "a" and "e" individually, so only both or neither can be dropped, not just one. ~~- the source goes into more detail - adding that "Palaeocene" is the default in the United Kingdom, whereas "Paleocene" is in Europe (as in North America).~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given this, I think it is prudent to frame this as an opinion of the paper author rather than as fact. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea what equatorial temperatures were like

not that I could find User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "disaster plants" that refilled the emptied landscape crowded out many Cretaceous plants, and resultantly, many went extinct by the middle-Paleocene. - examples?

Not that I could find User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to give the reader some estimate of how quickly mammals grew over what time period.

I gave the measurements of the largest Mesozoic mammal known and one of the largest mammals from the Paleocene User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd elaborate on the largest mammals (Barylambda?) a bit. I think you need to embellish on what were the largest etc.

I think you mean elucidate, and I put the weight of Barylambda in the caption User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as a verb, it can mean "develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in further detail." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable plant taxa to include?

I remember the page used to say something about palm trees and cactuses but I couldn’t find any references and removed it, but I’ll try looking again User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing about palms evolving in the Paleocene (which is false) comes from this which says 3 of 5 subfamilies of palm trees were present in a Colombian Paleocene forest, and the thing about cacti evolving in the Paleocene (which is also false) is a misinterpretation of someone saying cacti evolved in the Paleogene User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll start editing tomorrow, the last couple of days have been really busy, but the rest of the week is basically clear User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no huge rush or anything. I just realised this is the first geological period nominated for GA. so could be a template for others. I am pinging @FunkMonk: as it'd be good to get a really good template. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the closest would be Kirtlandian, but seems it was somewhat controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a geological period, it should probably be in the Earth Sciences section instead of biology, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm so used to putting things in Biology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: You put a clarification needed tag next to the paleocoordinates 75–80°N. I don't understand why User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a general reader will not understand what a paleocoordinate is. How is it different from latitude? Is it the latitude of Ellesmere Island or the latitude of the Iceberg Bay Formation during the Paleocene? Or is it something else? If it is the latitude during the Paleocene, then this should be stated as e.g. "(at latitude 75-80°N during the Paleocene)" instead of "(paleocoordinates 75–80° N)". (By the way, for reference/comparison, Ellsmere Island's current latitude is about 76.2-83.1°N). GeoWriter (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it hasn't really changed position much so it's fine to just leave it at latitude User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the brittannica entry, it lists some prominent paleocene formations. Not good to use Britannica as a source but the thought is good - so need a section or subsection Prominent/notable formations. Can also put some short information on Moeraki boulders there too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC) :I didn’t see any formations listed on britannica but I’ll check fossilworks later when the website starts working again, and I don’t know what I’d say about the boulders. I think those belong in See also User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about this. We are covering it in a different way by talking about the flora and fauna in different places so don't sweat this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - also regarding the flora - I see papers discussing angiosperms here, here, here, here, and here. I can get fulltexts of these (the ones that are not obviously fulltexts) if you want and are unable to. It is really common for us all to focus on animals rather than plants and some digesting of these might be good to correct that a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this looks really interesting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added all of them except the canopy structure one because all he said was that it's uncertain when closed-top canopies formed in angiosperms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and fair point on last. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like in the Cretaceous, southern beeches, Podocarpaceous conifers, Nothofagus, and Proteaceae angiosperms were proliferate - err, grammar?

proliferous User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB: all good copyvio-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

(sorry to push so hard, trying to give it as big as a shove as possible to FAC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.