Talk:Deglaciation

Glaciers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmilyDUOregon. Peer reviewers: Jamilabaig, Ctello2, SkyBlueWater.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deglaciation and Younger Dryas are opposites, not equivalents

Having "deglaciation" redirect to "Younger Dryas" as is currently does not make any scientific sense. In fact the Younger Dryas is the opposite of a deglaciation in that it was a temporary reversal of the last deglaciation, which occurred at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum.Paul H. (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not apply anymore, as the the content has been deleted or revised. Nacutler (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Critique

The introduction to this article is good, but there are some fairly vague points made which could easily be expanded on, with a simple definition or short explanation. For example, rather than just stating that the last deglaciation began after the last Glacial Maximum, and lasted until the early holocene, and ending it there, the time period of the early Holocene could be stated (approximately 11500-5000 years before present). This would save the reader a click, be very simple to add, and would allow for a better understanding go the time periods being discussed.

The layout of this particular article is well structured, with headings that are clear, concise, and ordered effectively. The heading that could be altered slightly is that of "causes and effects", just to allow for better clarity, maybe include what causes and effects is referring to, as the other headings are specific, this would make the article structure more consistent and coherent.

In terms of balance within the article, and making the more important parts more prominent, this is done fairly well. The causes and effects section includes the most information, which makes sense, as this is a very important section of the topic of deglaciation. The last deglaciation event section could be longer though, as this is also important information, especially in terms of how our planet has been formed and how it durations today as a result of the last deglaciation. This section is rather short and vague and could be improved upon.

This article appears to provide neutral information and the facts and figures, and illustration that are provided have all been referenced appropriately. All of the information has come from credible sources, such as the IPCC, and many scientific academic journals/papers, with over 200 references used in a fairly short article. The sources used are reliable, as mentioned, the IPCC and peer-reviewed journals are necessary for creating a credible article. There does not appear to be any relations to blog posts, social media posts, or promotional material, etc, which would indicate a poorly sourced article, that may not be reliable, and is probably biased, which this article does not appear to be.

Finally, all of the links that were clicked (tried almost all of them), work and provided extra information that related appropriately to the topic of deglaciation. Each of the links for the references listed also worked, which is important when deciphering between reliable and non-reliable articles. EmilyDUOregon (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography for "assigning topic":

Bridges, E. M. "Deglaciation." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38 (1966): 203-04. Web.

Chen, Tianyu, Laura F Robinson, Andrea Burke, John Southon, Peter Spooner, Paul J Morris, and Hong Chin Ng. "Synchronous Centennial Abrupt Events in the Ocean and Atmosphere during the Last Deglaciation." Science (New York, N.Y.) 349.6255 (2015): 1537-41. Web.

Clark, Peter U., Jeremy D. Shakun, Paul A. Baker, Patrick J. Bartlein, Simon Brewer, Ed Brook, Anders E. Carlson, Hai Cheng, Darrell S. Kaufman, Zhengyu Liu, Thomas M. Marchitto, Alan C. Mix, Carrie Morrill, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Katharina Pahnke, James M. Russell, Cathy Whitlock, Jess F. Adkins, Jessica L. Blois, Jorie Clark, Steven M. Colman, William B. Curry, Ben P. Flower, Feng He, Thomas C. Johnson, Jean Lynch-Stieglitz, Vera Markgraf, Jerry Mcmanus, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Patricio I. Moreno, and John W. Williams. "Global Climate Evolution during the Last Deglaciation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109.19 (2012): E1134. Print.

Liu, Zhengyu, Anders E. Carlson, Feng He, Esther C. Brady, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Bruce P. Briegleb, Mark Wehrenberg, Peter U. Clark, Shu Wu, Jun Cheng, Jiaxu Zhang, David Noone, and Jiang Zhu. "Younger Dryas Cooling and the Greenland Climate Response to CO₂." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109.28 (2012): 11101-1104. Web.

Stroeven, Arjen P., Et Al. "Deglaciation of Fennoscandia." Quaternary Science Reviews 147 (2016): 91-121. Science Direct. Web. 04 May 2017.

EmilyDUOregon (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

All the information presented in the article is relevant to the topic of deglaciation. Nothing was distracting from the main topic, but the background section could benefit from being expanded upon to include areas other than just Greenland and Antarctica. The information and ideas were presented in neutral viewpoints and they are not trying to convince the reader of a particular stance. I checked some of the citations and they were all working and from reputable sources. Many of the references were published within the last few years and your working bibliography has one from this year, so I do not think any of the information will be out of date. If I find any articles of interest I’ll make sure to share them here. Ctello2 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2

The general content of the article is good, but could possibly be reorganized. Having the Greenland section under background doesn't make sense -- most of the content is actually about Greenland as a source of methane and cause of deglaciation, which would make more sense in the next section. Also, "[h]uman activities promoting climate change" sounds odd.

Starting a paragraph with "Some additional information about..." (in "The Last Deglaciation" section) isn't very encyclopedic in tone and should be changed. That additional information is a good start but should probably have more citations.

There are a few minor grammar-type issues throughout (like capitalizing carbon dioxide); I fixed some of them but I don't think I got them all. There are also places where the writing could be tightened (for example, consequently resulted is redundant) which would make it read more like a traditional encyclopedia.

Is it "deglacialized" (in the page) or "deglaciated"? Is there a difference? SkyBlueWater (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]