Template:Did you know nominations/Nama assemblage
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nama assemblage
- ... that enigmatic early animals underwent two major extinctions in a short time right before most groups of animals alive today appeared? Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/new-ediacaran-biota-from-the-oldest-nama-group-namibia-tsaus-mountains-and-redefinition-of-the-nama-assemblage/6794D8CBE4BA23E81D29D67CE624D9C3
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC).
Would you be able to clarify what is being stated in the second sentence of the "Biota" section? the middle portion regarding the 550ma seems to be out of place as currently written.--Kevmin § 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The sentence in the article is still a bit hard to parse for anyone reading it for the first time, but it does conform to the sources used. The article is new enough and long enough, with reliable sourcing and no close paraphrasing identified. I think we are good to go at this point.--Kevmin § 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby, Kevmin, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: sorry for last minute pull, I checked this set earlier today but only just had access to a computer to edit... I have to say it took me a long time to figure out what was going on with this hook, it doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to anything that's in the article at first glance. After reading some of the linked articles and based on what Kevmin says on the nom page above, I assume the sentence we're looking at for this one is "The Nama assemblage is bounded from the earlier White Sea assemblage and later Cambrian period by two major episodes of faunal turnover, considered to be pulses of the end-Ediacaran extinction". But I think there are several issues with this that make it not compliant with WP:DYKHOOK at the moment, in that there are aspects of the hook not found in the linked bolded article. Firstly, the hook links to Vendobionta, with no corresponding link to that page in the article; and it pipes that link to "enigmatic early animals", again something not discussed here. Secondly, the last part of the hook says "right before most groups of animals alive today appeared" with a link to Cambrian explosion, once again a mentioned fact and a link not found directly in the article. We know it's the Cambrian period from the article, but would also need to directly say and cite that this means when most groups of animals alive today appeared. I suspect this could be corrected with a few choice cited additions to the article, but would like to see this before we run it on the main page rather than later. A good interesting article anyway, I didn't know anything about this. Cheers! — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)