User talk:Cshirc1/Archean Life in the Barberton Greenstone Belt

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Review of this article-in-progress by Erin:

Big changes: Doesn't need much in the way of large changes. There are not significant holes in What, Where, When, Why and How. It could stand some fleshing out or mention of related topics like trace fossils vs body fossils and which these are/are not (especially in that final section). Maybe something about the Wilson cycle? Or why greenstone belts are good places to look for ancient life?

Little changes: I think it could benefit from a slight reorganization of topics, so that the article flows better. For example, moving the geologic section to be incorporated into a more 'full' introduction or removing it altogether. The second option makes the assumption that visitors to the article will have familiarity with the Barberton Greenstone Belt, and it's up to you to decide how likely that is.

Style suggestions: Looks like spell check missed a few things, so you should go back over and read it out loud to catch where these are; whether you want to use British ae vs e (in Archaean vs Archean) doesn't matter one way or the other, but be consistent. I would also caution the use of "weasel words" like predominantly and typically, and watch out for passive voice; it seems like it creeps up on you.

Visual suggestions: Captions can be more descriptive. Instead of "Stromatolites from Lester Park", indicate why you can recognize stromatolites as fossils and point out things the novice may not notice. The location of the photo is less important than what it brings to the article; leave the location for the file page. I do love that you have some cell morphologies listed, and I think that maybe an average scale could be beneficial here, to really drive home how close you have to look to find this evidence, but it IS there.

Overall, great rough draft! Keep up the good work! Ewalde1 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review of article rough draft by Marielle

Introduction

You state "work the potentially demonstrates life appearing 3.8 billion years ago...". What specific work are you referring to? It sounds like this could develop into an interesting subsection as long as it doesn't get too specific.
Why are sed. and metased. the 2 MOST important for studying early life? It's strong vocabulary ("most") so maybe another sentence or two to explain why they are so important.

Geologic Hist...

This is only a minor critique but you already gave the general location of the Barberton in the introduction. Maybe a little repetitive but not a big deal.

Evidence for life

Your section on isotope analysis is great! You took would could be very dense and confusing to the average reader and explained and simplified it in a wonderful way. Kudos lady!

Fossil Record

You mention stromatolites as being as old as 3.5 billion years old. Is this specific to your area?

Future Applications

You state "Long been hypothesized...". Can you provide a more specific date or year? It just seems a little vague and wishy washy for an encyclopedia article. Overall, this is one of the best wiki pages I've seen and is extremely effective. I really don't have any major problems or critiques... just minor possible edits.

Images

Your image of the Archean cell morphologies is very simple and clear. The only suggestion I have is to actually discuss it in the text of the article. Maybe you could discuss the three specific morphologies in some subsections under cell morphology.

Commments by Graeme

The image File:South African Greenstone Belt.png is actually a derivative of the state department map. This means that you should say who made the derivative by drawing the red zone on it. (I assume that it is you).
Where you say "exposed sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock" it seems as if you are covering all possibilities. You could just say "exposed rock" and be less verbose.
In the Geologic history you opnly cover where and when, without covering any detail of the history.
for Cell morphology are all the fossils graphite traces of cell walls?
for Isotope analysis it would be good to know the reason for the excursion on values. Is it because methane is enriched in C12? or does the bacterial enzymes convert one isotope faster than another?
For Kromberg and Hooggenoeg Formations you say it is mostly igneous, but what sort of igneous, is it volcanic under sea meterial? Are the sediments exclusively chert?
The stromatolite image is from the wrong place for this article. Are the oldest stomatolites from this Greenstone Belt or from the Pilbara?
There should be a link to the article that describes the evidence for pre Archean life, or perhaps you can explain it in this article.
There is a picture of cell shapes, but they are not described in the text.
For the references by Walsh, M, there are three the same. You can use the <ref name=walsh>...</ref> and subsequently <ref name=walsh/> so that you get multiple sentences referenced to one foot note. The references are nicely formatted. You could also add the DOI and links to online articles so that readers can follow up.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Michael Stevens Good start over all. well organized and well though out. The intro was vague enough for a wide audience and specific enough to introduce the page. however i though the wording in the intro needed some revising, it seemed a little awkward. The geol history i though was a little short, just a few more sentences would have helped this section. Both the evidence for life, and fossil records were well written. and i like that you added a future applications paragraph, i will definitively take that idea. Nice job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstev18 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]