User talk:Bkoenker/sandbox
- Read page in its entirety for consistency and edits - Find citations for sentences that are currently lacking (e.g. Ross Large, Oskin) - Terms to highlight/link - Remove researchers names from text - Add Figures (find out how)
Hi Team,
Overall there's a lot of great material here, nice job! First thought - there are a lot of big sections of text, can you break up the first section a bit? Maybe have 'Introduction' or 'Background' or 'History' or something? Or add some figures to break up all the text?
In first section: "The approximately one billion-year time period between 1.8 and 0.8 Ga" - DEFINE GA The Boring Billion was thus termed ‘boring’ due to the fact that unlike the rapidly changing environments present on Earth before and after this time period, it is (change to was) characterized by climatic stability, low levels of atmospheric oxygen, lack of biological events, and the absence of extreme changes in the atmospheric and oceanic composition[5][6][7].
This sentence is pretty wordy, can we edit it? Stability during the Boring Billion may be attributed to a relatively stable supercontinent that was initiated by 1.7 Ga and persisted until breakup around 0.75 Ga (ie 'Stability during the BB may be caused by a quiet period in tectonic activity, with a supercontinent forming by 1.7 Ga and lasting X number of years until 0.75 Ga).
I like the Climate stability section a lot. It reads well and is very clear. A few suggestions: This is too 'sciencey'. Can you re-write to be more clear? Or just take out 'posits' that is not a layterm. Maybe 'assumes' "The evolution of Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere has long been linked to the supercontinent cycle, which posits that Earth’s continental crust undergoes a quasi-periodic cycle of aggregation and dispersal."
Again, wording is too advanced. How about 'scarcity' instead of paucity? "A consequence of the limited breakup history is the paucity of passive margins during the time period from 1.8 to 0.8 Ga[16]."
Cosmic activity section - this should go after the 'Absence of prolonged glaciations' section, since it explains some reasons for the absence of said glaciations. Otherwise it is out of context.
Re-write as "One theory is that the absence of glaciation could be linked to the intensity of cosmic ray flux. It is believed that periods of glaciation may be linked to periods with low cosmic ray flux due fluctuations in solar wind variations."
For the second part of this paragraph, how would a reduced rate in star formation link to decreased glaciation? Limited heat from solar radiation? What is the cause, this sentence leaves us hanging! "Another possible cause is the rate of star formation in the Milky Way. The reduced rate in star formation may be linked to a decreased amount of glaciations from 1 to 2 Ga[19]."
This sentence is confusing - "Some researchers[20][21] believe, however, that the proposed lack of an ozone layer, as expected during periods of low concentrations of atmospheric oxygen, in combination with lower solar intensity[22] during that time period should have precluded the absence of glaciation without an intense greenhouse effect."
Can you rewrite? Maybe split into 2 sentences (ie 'Some researchers propose that an absent ozone layer would be expected during times of low concentrations of atmospheric oxygen, combined with lower solar intensity. However, the lack of an ozone layer should have precluded the absence of glaciation without an intense greenhouse effect.')
But did we see an intense greenhouse effect? I don't understand what this section is trying to say?
Low oxygen during BB section - The beginning of this is a little awkward. Maybe edit? ie - "In the geologic record, there are 2 spikes in oxygen levels on Earth; one occurring between 2.4 to 2.1 Ga, known as the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), and the second occurring at approximately 0.8 Ga[23]."
Hope these suggestions are helpful. Great job, there is a ton of great content here!
Jevanswi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Jevanswi (Janan)