Talk:Cambrian substrate revolution

Discussion from user pages - moved here
I hadn't seen the term until earlier to-day, so I doubt if I can contribute content. Give me a call if you want comments on how it looks to an ignoramus. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That does appear to be a gastropod you see munching away in the background. Whatever was Seilacher thinking of? Seriously though, "The revolution put an end to the conditions which allowed exceptionally preserved fossil beds such as the Burgess shale to be formed" implies that the revolution was later than the Burgess Shale.
 * PS I think that takes it out of the Cambrian Explosion.
 * PPS "Agronomic revolution"? Whatever was Seilacher thinking of? It sounds like something that happened in the 18th century. Philcha (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created Template:Cambrian substrate revolution as I think it will be useful for e.g. Microbial mat Philcha (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottjer et al (2000) described the pre-revolution substrate as "a fairly stable, relatively low water content sediment surface with a sharp water-sediment interface". PS: should we start using the article's Talk page, so other can laugh at our antics? Philcha (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Title
Surely the witty "Agronomic revolution" is less comprehendable than Cambrian substrate revolution or Cambrian agronomic revolution. Omitting "Cambrian" is meant to provide the Wikipedia reader an "Aha! oh, that agonomic revolution" moment, but a really good title should be quite transparent. --Wetman (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite agree, and have moved the page to Cambrian substrate revolution.
 * Thanks for your diligent copyedit; in reply, brackish waters are also inhospitable (as well as over-salty); there are and may have been other tough biogenic polymers besides chitin; and I'm going to leave Philcha to explain the dryness issue as he's read that paper!
 * Good to see you're still at large - it's been a while since I last bumped into you! All the best, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still off the leash, as you see! Much better title: a pebble shaken from my shoe! But I'm the ideal reader for this article: very moderately well-prepared, but utterly amateur. So, what I don't get on a careful reading might actually be obscure. --Wetman (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure
We seem to have quite a lot of duplicate content, especially comparisons of before and after. That suggests we need to improve the structure. I suggest (omitting the lead, as that will summarise whatever we agree):
 * Outline of the before and after situations, similar to the current "Geological and chemical effects" and including the big image.
 * Evolution of burrowing before the revolution - including why some animals burrowed despite the toxic H2S.
 * What caused the transition.
 * Direct impact on ecosystems:
 * Microbial mats.
 * Echinoderms.
 * Molluscs.
 * etc.
 * Wider and longer-term effects. Philcha (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add "Vendobionts" and "Calcifying mat dwellers" [Cloudina, Namacalathus...] to the "etc" and agree that that sounds good! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think combining "Outline of the CSR" with the lead was a good move. There no reason to go inot much more detail about the chemistry, and the lead will be short of room to summarise the rest of the content. Philcha (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But surely the whole point of the lead is to provide an outline of the CSR? If it goes into too much detail, perhaps that is an indication that we should move some information elsewhere into the body.  With a lead, then an outline, then the rest of the article, the reader is reading the same thing three times! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually a start with a token lead, and then go to work on it when the rest of the article's in shape. It's easier to summarise when you know what most of the content looks like. And I prefer the body of the article to develop naturally, without any concerns about which sentences should be in the lead and which in the main text. Philcha (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Miscell notes

 * Pharyngula: Odontogriphus omalus explains importance of mats as food for Ediacaran and Early Cm animals. Philcha (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)