Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triassic–Jurassic extinction event/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2024 [1].

Triassic–Jurassic extinction event

Nominator(s): Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the six most severe mass extinction events of the Phanerozoic eon, termed the "Big Six", and it has nearly 200 unique references detailing the causes of the event and on the extinction, survival, and recovery patterns among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine life over the course of the event. Additionally, it is similar in scope and quality to the Cretaceous-Palaeogene extinction event article when it was first nominated and approved for featured article status. I think this article is ready to undergo the trials of the Featured Article nomination process.Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it is similar in scope and quality to the Cretaceous-Palaeogene extinction event article when it was first nominated and approved for featured article status, keep in mind that what qualifies as an FA has changed largely over the years; that article hasn't been reviewed in 16 years. Take a look at what Earth looked like when it was first nominated. Various unsourced statements, and looking at how much literature has been added and how the article has changed over 17 years (significant expansions in areas, a 2,000 word increase), it's clear that the 2007 nominated version of the article would not have met current standards. 750 h+ 12:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Some very quick comments for now, more in a few days when I have time:

What is source 43 ("Opazo Mella, Luis-Felipe; Twitchett, Richard J. (10 November 2021)."), are you citing a data repository here? Is there a peer-reviewed paper associated with that dataset? (If so, you should cite that?)
"Jber. Mitt. oberrhein. geol. Ver, N. F. 93, 9–26, 2011." – That should be spelled out. The journal is "Jahresberichte und Mitteilungen des Oberrheinischen Geologischen Vereins", but I have no idea what "N. F." is here (volume or issue?). Also need to add language=German to the citation template.
What is source 3 ("The extinction of conodonts — in terms of discrete elements — at the Triassic–Jurassic boundary" (PDF). ucm.es.) – the link does not lead me to any pdf.
Throughout the article, it should be "Upper/Late Triassic", not "upper/late Triassic (i.e., use upper case).
There are some sentences that do not seem to have inline citations. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose sorry. Overall it's a very well written article, but in addition to the few unsourced statements mentioned by Jens, the article fails 2c, a lead that summarises the article; there are some parts of the lead that aren't mentioned in the article. I am happy to give a full review once these are addressed. 750 h+ 04:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been fixed by removing irrelevant details, and all the problems with the article that @Jens Lallensack brought up have been addressed in my most recent edit; source 43 got the actual paper by Opazo Mella and Twitchett from Paleobiology linked as a source, the capitalisations have been added to Late Triassic and Early Jurassic, inline citations have been added, and the bad links have been discarded. Let me know what else in the article needs to be changed. --Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Oppose on prose quality, specifically FA criteria 1a) and 1b), and a failure to meet WP:MTAU. There is no attempt to place the subject in context (for reference, the easiest way is a "Background" section or similar), and the prose, being dominated by unexplained technical terms, is also consistently unengaging. Take the following, from the middle of the first body paragraph:

"The Lilliput effect affected megalodontid bivalves, whereas file shell bivalves experienced the Brobdingnag effect, the reverse of the Lilliput effect, as a result of the mass extinction event. There is some evidence of a bivalve cosmopolitanism event during the mass extinction."

Yeah, no clue. I would suggest keeping the "Rules of thumb" at WP:MTAU more firmly in mind—you are not writing for a specialist audience here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, you haven't read Gulliver's Travels? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Morrison Man

I will take a look at the article to provide some comments later today, but considering the fact that a number of criticisms have been raised, I'd like to let you know that if the article were to fail review, it can always be posted to WikiProject Paleontology's Article Workshop to get it in shape to pass any future reviews. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Much as Airship says. Too technical, not enough WP:MTAU. Eg the second sentence of the lead "On land, all archosauromorphs other than crocodylomorphs, pterosaurs, and non-avian dinosaurs became extinct; some of the groups which died out were previously abundant, such as aetosaurs, phytosaurs, and rauisuchids" which is fairly typical. I would recommend withdrawal and running it through some or all of GAN, GoCE, WP Paleontology and PR, and possibly finding a FAC mentor. @FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PrimalMustelid

Oppose on other issues brought up here in addition to article structure (2b). We appreciate your work on this article, but it's very difficult to understand. The average person is not going to navigate through the causes section well, so prose clearly needs to be made easier to understand. In addition, we're lacking historical context behind the early research history of the Tr-J extinction event. Who first described the extinction event, and how has academic consensus on it changed over time? I also think that you should try to discuss the extinction event in a way that at least partially filters information on faunas that went extinct following the event from those that survived. You shouldn't rely extensively on the K-Pg event page since it is quite an old FA, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone wants it reassessed to conform to modern day quality standards. That means that you'll have to reinvent the wheel a bit if you want to improve this page. Good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anteosaurus magnificus, I'm going to have to agree with the others here. Can I suggest you withdraw this nomination (just ping the coords by using the {{@FAC}} template), and then work on the article a little more before going through PR? There are some good bits of advice above, which gives you a starting point to begin. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the points above, here's a list of the afforementioned mentors, should you choose to seek one. I'm archiving this, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.