Talk:Boring Billion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

The article and sources state that O2 levels dropped. But the image (Evolution Of Atmosferic Oxygen.svg) shows a constant O2 concentration following GOE. I think it is inconsistent with the text. Shouldn't it be removed/replaced?

removed graph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multicellular eukaryotes had probably evolved about 2–1.4 Gya, [they are?] thought to be the descendants of colonial unicellular aggregates. OR "Multicellular eukaryotes, thought to be the descendants of colonial unicellular aggregates, had probably evolved about 2–1.4 Gya"?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondria had already evolved in the Great Oxygenation Event, but plastids used in plants for namely[?] photosynthesis are thought to have appeared about 1.6–1.5 Gya.

plastids are used for more than just photosynthesis User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Canfield said that oceanic SO42− reduced all the iron in the anoxic deep sea, as opposed to oxygen as previously supposed." said → has argued?

that works too I guess User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"indicated by δ13C levels to have been loss of 10 to 20 times the current volume of atmospheric oxygen" To me, it seems hard to comprehend. Should be clarified.

"to have been a loss" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & verifiability

I could not find the term "Boring Billions" in the cited source (Brasier, M. D.; Lindsay, J. F. (1998)).

That's the wrong source. I'm actually not sure where and when he coined it. I saw one news article referencing sound bytes, so I think maybe in a conference at some point in time, and I have a 2006 journal which is the earliest published mention of the term "boring billion" that I can find (but Brasier is credited with coining the term). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Low nutrient abundance may have caused increased photosymbiosis..." Source (Brasier, M. D.; Lindsay, J. F. (1998)) states: "Remarkable and prolonged stability of the carbon cycle,...major phosphorites, or mass extinctions, suggest that nutrient stability and P limitation nurtured these photosymbioses...". I am no expert in this, so could you please elaborate how the former can be derived, without much OR, from the latter?

"P depletion is a major factor in obligate associations between photosymbionts and host cells" basically because the nutrients eukaryotic life requires were not abundant enough, these creatures needed to turn to other manners of obtaining them (photosymbiosis), and Brasier specifically narrows in on P as a limiting nutrient in this source User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the term "Barren Billions" in the cited source (Williams, G. E. (2005)).

I think that was there before I started, and I trusted it, which was a mistake. It was actually Young 2013; I think it got there because Young said "with the possible exception of sub-glacial meltwater channels and glaciofluvial deposits (ca. 1.8 Ga) described by Williams (2005) from Western Australia" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The evolution of Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere has long been linked to the supercontinent cycle, where the continents aggregate and then drift apart" is not in Evans, D. A. D. (2013). Roberts, N. M. W. (2013) should be added here.

One of Evan's big ideas is how the supercontinent cycle affects the Earth, such as "a supercontinent cycle is generally invoked to explain a number of global-scale phenomena in the long-term geologic record", "there may be a link between supercontinents and the global seawater"; also added Roberts User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boenigk, Jens; Wodniok, Sabina; Glücksman, Edvard (2015-03-31) [46] needs page number.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lenton, T.; Watson, A. (2011) is actually a chapter named "The not-so-boring billion" in "Revolutions that made the Earth". It should be formatted accordingly (like [15] and [60]).

added chapter title User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. [2] (Brasier 2012, p. 211) should be formatted like other book refs.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

"File:Oxygen During the Boring Billion.png": I couldn't find where does the source state that the image is CC BY-SA 4.0
"File:Timeline showing the Boring Billion.png": Link to the source needed.

The same person uploaded both of those image in 2016 so I asked him/her. I'll take both images down until I get a response User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. A nice and informative article. Great work. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed