|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): BOUDIANA. Assigned peer reviews: Osborne147.|
After reviewing this article I found a few areas that could be improved.
1. Behavioral classifications, which should be linked to the ethology page, should also include fugichnia (escape behavior). Additionally, the behaviors listed should link to examples of trace fossils exhibiting the behavior.
2. More information should be included in the Ichnofacies section and direct any readers to further explore them by clicking the ichnofacies link.
3. Common ichnofacies should be organized in a more user friendly way. Perhaps in a way that aids in identification for professional and amateur collectors alike. First, the entire section should be subdivided into vertebrate vs invertebrate or divided based on some organism basis rather than alphabetically. I think a table format would be a good way to achieve my ideas for this section. Suggestions for columns include: associated ichnofacies, behavior, possible tracemaker, possible depositional environment, and/or short description such as size, depth of burrow, branching, etc. A table would also easily show any gaps in data.
4. In situ preservation should also be mentioned, and linked, in this article as it is one major reason why trace fossils are so informative.
Critique: I think the Ichnofacies addition to the article was great! The paragraph is concise, informative, pertinent, and well-corroborated. I see little room for improvement, but I have a couple suggestions. I'm not too sure about its direct relevance to the surrounding content/context of the "Ichnofacies" section, but consider moving it between "Classification" and "Information provided by ichnofossils" - again, not sure how appropriate that is. I might also move or incorporate the last sentence about Seilacher toward the beginning of the paragraph. Osborne147 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Added text I originally wrote this article in 1998 and published it on the Web....
Dlloyd 19:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is a stromatolite a trace fossil ????
Dlloyd 02:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Portions of this text are :
"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.
Dlloyd 00:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A friend and I have written a web page (http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/trafos.html) which might be appreciated as an external link to this page. I'm just starting out on Wikipedia and don't know what the quality criteria are for such external links, so if anyone would like to have a look and link it/decide not to link it then feel free. If you want to use it's content to update the article a bit then also feel free, obviously. Kris 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Fossilized dinosaur footprints"??
Surely those "footprints" on the top photo are fake. I'll take them off unless I hear some compelling case otherwise. I could be wrong, but I would like to know where these are, at least. Wilson44691 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The footprints are on the lawn of the Oxford University Museum. I forget whether they are originals or casts, but they are genuine fossils. The image seemed clearer and more captivating than the previous one. Verisimilus T 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I recognize the place and now understand. Those are casts set out on the lawn as an attraction. It is not, of course, an actual trackway. With so many genuine trace fossil images to choose from, shouldn't we have a better photo at the top of the page? At the very least, the reader should understand that this is not an actual track of a dinosaur. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've recently created Dinocochlea which is a trace fossil in the Natural History Museum in London - famous for science's inability to properly identify it for almost a century. I'm not quite sure if I should add a link in to it on this article, and if so, where. Any suggestions? Witty Lama 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)