"The Boreal in paleoclimatology was the first Blytt-Sernander period, pollen zone and chronozone of Holocene north Europe." For the average reader, this is a pretty stiff opening sentence: This article should begin with a brief general introduction, followed by the fine descriptions, then the minutiae of how dates are arrived at. If I were competent I'd write the opening paragraph myself: it should simply provide a precis of what's to come. --Wetman 08:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Dating of the YD-PB transition
11.5 is not a generally accepted date. Compare alone the different ice core chronologies! Moreover, lacustrine and marine varve layers are generally "swimming" chronologies with some uncertanties. And the most important and reliable dendro-chronologies are not completely published, because the labarotories have to earn their money with that knowledge. HJJHolm (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I started with the picture of the alleged "drowned coastlines" between Ireland and the UK, because the picture seems to have found its way here simply by chance. HJJHolm (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The system of radiocarbon dates in this article is bewildering; some dates are given in calibrated C14 years BP, some in "incal BP" (uncalibrated?) and some in unspecified BP. PLEASE stick to just one scale! At least in archaeology it is standard practise to give calibrated ages in calBC, not calBP, while geologists at least formerly preferred uncalibrated BP years. In the present article one is not always certain whether "BP" refers to calibrated or uncalibrated years, and even comparing stated calibrated and uncalibrated (?) ages requires a constant reference to Oxcal or eqv.!--Death Bredon (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is quite correct. These "experts" live today in fact in the year 61 "after present"! HJJHolm (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The same level of bewilderment is found in most popular sources, and far too many more advanced ones, & will continue to be until the specialists sort the matter out. If you are able to clarify matters please do so. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled onto this page and while I appreciate the efforts of the original author, the writing style is not in-line with a wikipeida encyclopedic style and lacks any citations. I have made a few minor changes, and hope to work on it a bit at a time in the future. best regards Halogenated (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I would re-look at whether taiga is the properly described or if it is the wrong biome to use...maybe its steppe? I would look at the link of taiga and then reread the description in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe "cold snap" refers to the Younger Dryas, not the whole Ice Age. While lasting c. 1200 years, the Younger Dryas was a mere snap compared to the 100 000 years of the last Würm/Weichsel/Wisconsin glaciation or the 2.6 million years of the last (or current!) Quaternary Ice Age.--Death Bredon (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boreal (age). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050920180128/http://www.envf.port.ac.uk:80/geog/teaching/quatern/q8b.htm to http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geog/teaching/quatern/q8b.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Article critique - major edits needed
The opening of this article is not written for a general audience without a specialist background. The lead section, in particular, would be difficult to read for someone who is not immersed in the relevant literature. (Agree with Wetman's comment about what the article should be instead.) The rest of the article is better, but at times the tone is too poetic and casual; phrases such as “the blanket teemed with small, rapidly reproducing species” does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. And, as another user pointed out, “cold snap” does not seem like an appropriate way to refer to the Younger Dryas.
The biggest issue with this article is that it has no references, and it needs many. For example, the dates of the Younger Dryas are listed as “generally accepted” but there is no evidence of who those dates are generally accepted by. Given that the next paragraph in the sections mentions how dates given can vary (again with no citations), a source for this is particularly important. It is also important to give a reference for the very specific (“solid dates”) listed in the section. Without citations, it is impossible to determine if the sources use used are independent, unbiased and reliable! While it is good that the article does detail some of the different estimates used to define the Boreal (and the pre-Boreal), they are not presented neutrally. This is a good example of this: “Presumably, more-recent dates are more accurate, as technology improves with time, often quite rapidly. Yet, pollen and climate phases also to some degree may depend on latitude, so no date can be regarded as certainly wrong. Scientists look for the overall pattern of the dates, but that technique is not 100% reliable, either.”
I generally like the different categories included in the article as it is now, but it could use some re-organizing. I would suggest starting with “Dating” and then moving to “Description.” “Flora,” “Fauna,” and “Humans” could easily be sub-categories of the description section. The “Subdividing the Boreal” section should be removed, though the information contained in it could be integrated into another section (probably “Dating”). It is confusing and it does not make sense to start the article with this.
This article is geographically biased; it is almost entirely focused on Europe and North America. This is particularly true of the section on fauna. The pictures are helpful for the reader (also true for the flora section) but it seems likely that they do not represent other parts of the world (I need to do more research on this though). SkyBlueWater (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)