Kirtlandian was one of the Geography and places 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.
Talk:Kirtlandian 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
I propose to take on this review. I know little of paleontology or the Cretaceous period so besides assessing whether it meets the GA criteria, I will be considering whether the article is accessible to non-experts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why this article was nominated in GAN under "Biology and Medicine" rather than "Geology"?
Changed
I will come back to the lead later when I have studied the rest of the article.
OK
"These formation originate in Alberta and Montana, Utah, ..." - Is "originate" the right word here?
Fixed
Explain or link at first use: stratigraphy, formation, fauna, taxon, lithology,
Linked
"... until their place of discovery was found to be from the Kirtland Formation." - needs some explanation.
Explaned
In the thickness section, it states that the two formations have certain thicknesses, then it restates this information using a different source.
Modified sentences
"... the Kirtland includes one of the five rocks being coal." - I don't think this is very clear.
Fixed
"Another commons rock is sandstone, found through the Kirtland Formation. The other three rock found in the Kirtland Formation are siltstone, mudstone and shale." - You presumably mean "common". These two sentences could be combined.
Combined, reworded
"The Kirtlandian faunal age was named by Lucas and Sullivan and was found to date from 74.9 to 72 million years ago." - In what year did they make this estimation?
Added
"The other two ashes were found to date the same as found by Sullivan in 2006." - This could be better expressed.
Changed
This paragraph overuses the phrases "found that the age/date was different", can you express some of these in a different way?
Changed
How is the presently accepted date established?
Added
"Many fauna are from the Kirtlandian, ..." - Perhaps "The Kirtlandian has a distinctive fauna, ..."
Changed
"As the Kirtlandian consists of the Fruitland and Kirtland formations, all fauna from the formations come from the Kirtlandian." - This seems a self-evident statement.
Removed, reworded
"... and a turtle assigned to Kinosternoid indet." - What does "indet" mean?
"Fauna from the Kirtlandian have come from the Williams Fork Formation." - What about starting this paragraph "Kirtlandian fauna are also present in the Williams Fork Formation." or somesuch.
Changed
Looking at your use of "cf.", it does not seem to agree with the article cf. which suggests it should be "placed between the genus and species name to describe a species whose designation is uncertain".
But if the genus designation is uncertain, it goes before the genus instead.
"The only taxon are known from the formation is ..." - "Taxon" is singular.
Done.
"Barely any fauna are known from the Ringbone Formation. The only taxon are known from the formation is ..." - How about "Few fossils have been found in the Ringbone Formation, the only significant one being ..."?
Changed.
"... is because it is from the same age as the correlating Fort Crittenden Formation" - Perhaps " is because the rocks are the same age as the Fort Crittenden Formation".
Changed.
"... Tyrannosauridae indet., and Ornithomimidae indet." - rephrase to get rid of the "indet"s.
Done.
"... is now largely incorrect." - How about using "superceded"?
Done.
"Three unnamed faunal ages were also identified, between the Paluxian and Aquilan, the Aquilan and Judithian, and the Judithian and Edmontonian. The Kirtlandian was characterized as the later gap." - How about "Three previously unnamed faunal ages were given names and term "Kirtlandian" was chosen for the gap between the Judithian and Edmontonian."
Done.
The last sentence in the Associations section is awkward. How about starting it "Another association, the "Pachyrhinosaurus - Edmontosaurus association", ..."?
Just glancing over the article, I notice the opening sentence uses the past tense. This gives the impression that Kirtlandian is no longer a used/accepted Faunal stage.
Fixed
1975 has been linked to 1975 in Paleontology, however there is no distinct information relevant to Kirtlandian, and no other dates are linked. Seems odd.
Removed link. Some day, a note might be added that a new faunal age was named in that year, but right now most "in Paleontology" pages are lists.
Are the Hunter Wash local fauna and Willow Wash local faunas distinct enough from there respective formations to have articles separate from them? If not linking to the appropriate formation pages?
Currently, I don't think enough studies have been published to warrant them their own page, and it would take lots of research to distinguish which local fauna taxa are from. IJReid (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]