Talk:Geological history of Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Geological history of Earth was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
June 23, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Geological history of Earth is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Time (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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[edit]

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)

the following issue has been discussed. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:02, 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)

replied on user talk page. Sushant gupta 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Faults and folds[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Article completely re-rewritten[edit]

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)

GA Review[edit]

  1. Broadness: Pass
  2. Well-written: Pass
  3. Images: Pass
  4. Factually accurate: Pass
  5. Neutral POV: Pass
  6. Stable: Pass

Good work on another geology article. It passes.Mitchcontribs 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Moon[edit]

I think there's a bit too much focus on the Moon for an article named "geologic history of the Earth." It should be reduced. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as it seems a direct copy from the Moon#Origin_and_geologic_evolution sections. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Cut the section. Material should be summarized from another article, rather than copied verbatum. Yes, a brief summary should be inserted with a pointer to the moon section. Vsmith (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully in disagreement with the above. Namely, the origin of the Moon as a result of a massive impact cleaving the Earth is a highly significant event in the history of Earth. Worthy of a section, or at least a few lines and a reference imho. [1]

The origin of the Moon is important, and so are lots and lots and lots of other things in this article. This is why I reduced the content recently added, as well as some that was there. The citation to the source that you seem to favor is still there, just moved down into the body of the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Isambard for dedicated attention to this one topic. I agree with your intention to remove the short discussion down to the Hadean. Admittedly I do not appreciate having significant, possibly better information added by me being dismissed/undone forthwith. It is not for us to like, or not like the reports of our fellow scientists, but do please read the article. It's a small change to "your" narrative. I did make an editing error just now though, so I will replace it again the way I meant to originally. Please see it now: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neito Nossal (talkcontribs) 02:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad redirect[edit]

Evolution of animals redirects here. There is nothing about evolution of animals in this article. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done i have fixed it. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleistocene[edit]

The first sentence in the second paragraph sounds really wishy washy, vague, and philosophical: "The sum of transient factors acting at the Earth's surface is cyclical: climate, ocean currents and other movements, wind currents, temperature, etc. The waveform response comes from the underlying cyclical motions of the planet, which eventually drag all the transients into harmony with them." It is followed by, "The repeated glacial advances of the Pleistocene were caused by the same factors," which is good, except "these factors" are never explicitly described. I suggest replacing the first sentence with info on Milankovich cycles, and perhaps on their effect on atmospheric chemistry (though this may be too in-depth for the overview). Awickert (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eocene and Oligocene[edit]

As it stands, the last part of Eocene is identical to the description of Oligocene. I sincerely doubt that the Alps folded twice... --Sir48 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Geological history of Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Overuse of bolding, puzzling lack of paragraphs, but not necessarily a GA requirement.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some references are provided.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    "ICS 2004" is a frequently used cite, but I see no ICS in the references listing. If it was there I would be tempted to pass this article. But the lack of cites in general is enough to make me fail the article. Even if the ICS source was listed, there are still large gaps between cites.
    C. No original research:
    Unsourced statements may contain original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article is very broad and comphrehensive, practially FA quality.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are great, lead photo is a FP on the Commons. Illustrations are of professional quality.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    An otherwise great article if it weren't lacking citations. If someone took the time to fix this up, it could be FA-quality in no time. I suggest a renomination when issues have been addressed, but I'm going to have to quickfail this one. --ErgoSumtalktrib 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've converted the bare ICS 2004 to a linked reference to the ICS 2008 timescale, is this what you were after? (I know it doesn't address your concerns about citing in general) Mikenorton (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. If I had realized someone would respond so quickly I would have put it on hold. But there are still other issues, such as lack of paragraphs, holding it back. GA standards have improved, and citations are necessary at every step. Each paragraph needs at least one cite, and usually involve three or more. Facts need to be checked and insured that they are correct. You can't rely upon facts in other WP articles because they have not been checked in this review. Each article must stand on its own, with complete references. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue but someone from another planet might not believe you. Sometimes obvious facts are not so obvious. I still would suggest a renomination, just to insure a thorough review. --ErgoSumtalktrib 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowball earth?[edit]

I thought that snowball earth was a hypothasys(sorry bad grammer) it doen't say that. Proterozoic Eon Main article: Proterozoic The geologic record of the Proterozoic (2.5-0.57 Ga) is much better than that for the preceding Archean. In contrast to the deep-water deposits of the Archean, the Proterozoic features many strata that were laid down in extensive shallow epicontinental seas; furthermore, many of these rocks are less metamorphosed than Archean-age ones, and plenty are unaltered.[10] Study of these rocks show that the eon featured massive, rapid continental accretion (unique to the Proterozoic), supercontinent cycles, and wholly-modern orogenic activity.[11] The first known glaciations occurred during the Proterozoic, one began shortly after the beginning of the eon, while there were at least four during the Neoproterozoic, climaxing with the Snowball Earth of the Varangian glaciation.[12] [edit]Phanerozoic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdoom (talkcontribs) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eocene onset of Cenozoic glaciations[edit]

I've added a 'citation needed' tag to the claim that the current period of glaciation started in the Eocene (40 million years ago) rather than the beginning of the Quaternary, which I understand to be the case. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The editor who tagged this page with a proposal to merge Thermal history of the earth into Geological history of Earth did not provide a forum for discussion, so I'll provide it.

I am not too familiar with this subject matter, but the editor who proposed a CSD seemed to think that there was no new content in Thermal history of the earth that wasn't already covered in Geological history of Earth, which the CSD-proposing editor considered to be the same topic. When I read the Geological history of Earth article, I saw that there was plenty of new content in the Thermal history of the earth article, so proposed merging as an alternative. Also, I cannot comment on whether or not the two articles share the same subject matter because I am not knowledgeable enough; I took the CSD-proposing editor's word for it. Gold Standard 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed the merge tag from article as no support above and no reason given by proposer. Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geological history of Earth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geological history of Earth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wang, K.; Jacobsen, S.B. (Sep 12, 2016). "Potassium isotopic evidence for a high-energy giant impact origin of the Moon". Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/nature19341.