Talk:Geological history of Earth
 | Geological history of Earth is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-08-19 Please use the
|
 | Geological history of Earth is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Geology B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
the following page is currently under construction. kindly discuss before making any changes. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Queries -sorry no time for review but may help calrify first
Ummm... a couple of things; I thought Tertiary and Quaternary had been renamed Paleogene and Neogene.
Also, why the jump from Precambrian to Devonian sections on the page?
cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would cut out 90% of the parts talking about life on earth and move it to its own page, and start with the creation of the soler system and the differences between the earth and other plants. Then move on to covering the two driving forces effecting geology of the earth- the oceans and the water cycle and plate tectonics. SXo basicly I think it would flow better and make more sense in the outline format:
- cause of geologically change: formation of the sun, planet, ocean, plate tectonics weathering etc.
- effects of geologically change
- results of geologically change; change in atmosphere, life, continental drift, mountain building etc.
Hardyplants 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Faults and folds
What is the purpose of this section? Seems a discussion of tectonic history would simply link to the fault and fold articles for definition and relevant info. Quite out of place in the present article.
Also, the use of a children's Visual Dictionary is rather absurd as a reference. Those DK Visual ... books are great for kids, but hardly a reliable reference for a serious science article in Wikipedia.
Removing section as inappropriate for the article. Vsmith 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection, I've removed the entire Physical aspects section. It was a rewrite or copy of other wiki articles and not directly about the geologic history of earth. Vsmith 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Focus of article
The current discussion of the geologic eons seems to be focused almost entirely on the lifeforms with very little on the physical (plate tectonic) history. As such the article is rather redundant with History of Earth and Timeline of evolution. If the article is to have relevance it needs to break away from its current focus on the history of life on Earth. In other words it needs a massive rewrite. Sorry to be brutal, but I don't see the current article as a viable candidate for good article or whatever. Vsmith 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree... I've been following this article (but haven't done much) and had been wondering why it exists at all -- all of its sections are simply summaries of other articles, it seems. As it stands right now, the time-related sections are for one informal Eon or "SuperEon", one formal Eon, and one Era, all of which have detailed articles of their own; many more are omitted. So I'm wondering what is or was the main point of this article? Cheers Geologyguy 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- you have termed this redunduncy but what i was wishing to do was to summaries the related topics. Okay Vsmith, do answer this question- then what is the need of the article- Solar System. it also redunduncy. same repeated information regarding planets and kupier belt. this article is recently created. Hey Vsmith, your knowledge regarding geology is outstanding, no doubt! so why don't you try to improve this article with me. I am a 15 years kid you see and truely speaking geology is not my field. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say you've done some good work - and for a 15 year old kid fantastic. Now, you requested a review and we've been doing that. Broad summary articles aren't my favorite editing field, but I've tried to help a bit and point out problems to be addressed. As User:J. Spencer pointed out on your talk page: get yourself a good modern college level historical geology text and use it for format and content ideas. As the paleontology stuff is well covered in other articles as pointed out above, you should focus more on the tectonic and other aspects of earth history by bringing together info about the various rifts and collisions among continents through time along with sedimentary basins, stratigraphic relationships, sea level changes and impact events - all in chronological order. That is a huge synthesizing job - and not one that I have time or inclination for at the moment. It's a challenging task (especially for a 15 year old kid :) - but jump into it and others (including me) will follow along and help out. Vsmith 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- you have termed this redunduncy but what i was wishing to do was to summaries the related topics. Okay Vsmith, do answer this question- then what is the need of the article- Solar System. it also redunduncy. same repeated information regarding planets and kupier belt. this article is recently created. Hey Vsmith, your knowledge regarding geology is outstanding, no doubt! so why don't you try to improve this article with me. I am a 15 years kid you see and truely speaking geology is not my field. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Article completely re-rewritten
Well now the article focuses only on tectonics. currently it needs much of wikification. within a week i would be nominating it for FAC. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The section on Cenozoic is by epoch, some of which are referred to in the text as periods; that should be changed. To be consistent, this section should focus on the periods of the Cenozoic, Paleogene and Neogene. Thanks for all your work. Cheers Geologyguy 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)