Talk:Geological history of Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Good article Geological history of Earth 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.
Earth sciences Portal
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the 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)

Contents

[edit] Queries -sorry no time for review but may help calrify first

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)

[edit] Faults and folds

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)

[edit] Focus of article

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)

[edit] Article completely re-rewritten

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)

[edit] GA Review

  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)

[edit] Moon

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)

[edit] Bad redirect

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)

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