Talk:Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

October 2019
The organization of the article is its strength - establishing first the outline of the model before moving to practical evidence increases clarity.

You need to add phrases along the lines of "according to the theory" within the sections "model" and "evidence." It is difficult to understand, for any given sentence, what time frame is being referenced (i.e., modern-day or Earth's early formation). Make sure to clearly differentiate between what the theory predicts and what is observed today.

You could also obviously expand the last sections of your article.

Is Vail known for other theories? Who was he? Was he consistently a scientist/figurehead? A slightly broader background in the lead would be helpful.

Jonas Cameron (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a scientific theory, its pseudoscience. Did any one but Vail support this theory?Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete might work, no relevance. The article includes two good references for things not related to Vail's invention, one reference to Vail and one reference to a single article discussing it, both over 100 years old. The Wikipedia article here is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations of science and so on. --mfb (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep CSD as non notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)