Talk:Cloudinid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Cloudinid has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Earth sciences Portal
Cloudinid 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Namapoikia rietoogensis

"Namapoikia rietoogensis a calcareous sheet" There's clearly some mistake here, but I haven't a clue to what was intended...???

Namapoikia is a fossil that is in the form of a calcareous sheet--the text above is probably a typo of "Namapoikia rietoogensis, a calcareous sheet, ..." To be accurate, though, Namapoikia was not a calcareous sheet while it was alive--that's just the form its fossil takes. Cantabmiller 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Discussion

Can any one determine what the "link from Brain" and the "cited in Miller" red links are on the reference section? It would be good to eliminate these to improve the article. GB 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Verisimilus T 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The main text does not say who discovered the fossil, although it looks like GJ Germs in 1972 - is that the case? (I would not be eligible to assess this article so I will not give my opinion!) GB 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was first described by Germs. Is the taxobox statement insufficient? Verisimilus T 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to review but something came up....a couple of points:

It strikes me that Geological setting and Fossil locations are very similar in scope and should be combined into one section...we called sections Paleoecology or Paleobiology to highlight the different approach to modern lifeforms (i.e. fossil evidence rather than direct observation). cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In many other biology articles, Morphology I've called Description for conformity. Not a strong point though. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
..went extinct.. - became extinct better. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the article. I've restructured it to incorporate "Geological Setting", which I think certainly needed doing. However, I'd prefer to stick with the current section headings. Whilst I agree that Palæoecology should describe the study (or inference) of the ecology, what we're interested in here is what the thing did whilst it was alive, no matter how we obtained the data. As far as the Description/Morphology choice, I think the title "Morphology" is more consistent with the other section headings and has a more encyclopaedic tone to it. Verisimilus T 09:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Y
2. Factually accurate?: As per above listed suggestions and fixes. Y
3. Broad in coverage?: As far as I can tell. Y
4. Neutral point of view?: Y
5. Article stability? Y
6. Images?: Could use some work here, but the infobox is enough for now. This is a place that further improvements should take place.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Nswinton\talk 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End-Ediacaran?

The extinction event template {{ExtEvent nav}} currently links the minor extinction event titled "End-Ediacaran?" directly to this article, but there is no direct connection made to this expression in the currrent article. Indeed, one must read the entire article even to conjecture what is meant by this connection (unless, perhaps, one already knows the answer — a problem with all too many technical articles on Wikipedia). Could some of our domain experts here make a meaningful, sourced connection to this implication, or redirect the template's link to a more appropriate article? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A few points in response: first, the Extinction Event Template is inaccurate, as the geological time period in question is the Vendian and does not occupy all of the proterozoic (it goes from around 600 MA to the Cambrian). Second, it is generally accepted that Cloudina and its contemporaries died out at the Vendian-Cambrian boundary, so the link from the "End-Ediacaran" is appropriate, though I would think that linking to an article about the Vendian-Cambrian boundary and/or minor extinction would be a better fit. Cloudina is considered an index fossil for the terminal proterozoic (i.e., Vendian) because of this connection--if it existed afterwards, it wouldn't make a very good index fossil. Cantabmiller (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ediacaran period was formally ratified in ~2004, with the term "Vendian" no longer in use. The end of the Ediacaran, surely, is the "Vendian-Cambrian boundary"? And some fossils are excellent index fossils in some parts of the world, where the same species may have wider temporal distributions elsewhere. The selection of a fossil as an index is not necessarily a statement as to the presence of a mass extinction. But: a separate page discussing the presence or otherwise of such an End-Ediacaran event would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Verisimilus T 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point about Vendian/Ediacaran--it's been a while since I've been immersed in the literature on the period names (and the reference I used in my reply above was sadly out of date). So, when I say Vendian above, it should be replaced with Ediacaran; thus, Cloudina and its contemporaries died out at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary, and calling it the end-Ediacaran is probably fine (I don't know if there's an accepted term for this extinction event). I agree that the designation of a fossil as an index is not necessarily a statement as to the presence of a mass extinction, but it is a statement as to the presence of the extinction of the species considered an index fossil. My point, poorly made, was that the reason someone linked end-Ediacaran to Cloudina is likely because Cloudina went extinct at that boundary (I do not know why they did not choose one of the other species that went extinct at the same time, so I agree that the selection is misleading if someone is looking for the complete story of the end-Ediacaran). I did not mean to imply that index species are only used to indicate a mass extinction. Cantabmiller (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the redirect?

Why is there a redirect from "Cloudina" to a page on "Cloudinid" when "Cloudina" is the sole genus anyway? This doesn't make much sense to me. 75.210.160.201 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)