Talk:Rhynie chert

Age of formation
Rice et al. 1995 give a biostratigraphic age of Pragian (411.2-407.0 Ma according to Gradstein et al. 2004) and a radiometric age of 396±12 Ma. At the time the two independent age estimates matched very well, but due a major revision of dates of the Devonian stage boundaries they no longer do. The uppermost radiometric age within the quoted error could just fit with the biostratigraphic age. At the moment the position of the Rhynie Chert on the Devonian Timeline Template shows up as Eifelian, which doesn't make much sense. A U-Pb age of 409.6±1.1 Ma is reported here, but not yet in a peer-reviewed journal. Do we need to wait until the U-Pb age paper is published, or is the BGS report a good enough source anyway? Mikenorton (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd consider the BGS a reliable source. At a minimum an indication of the uncertainty of Rice's age should be included in the article. Smith609  Talk  18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go with the BGS report and alter the Devonian timeline accordingly. Thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The paper finally appeared with a slightly modified age, 411.5±1.3 Ma, which still matches the text pretty well, so I've just replaced the ref. Mikenorton (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Taylor2005" :


 * Fixed by renaming. Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhynie Chert
Shame this got re-directed to 'Rhynie chert' - I should say that the appropriate capitalisation for this article would be the original 'Rhynie Chert' - it's a very specific rock. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree; I would also prefer "Rhynie Chert" as the title and as the capitalization style throughout. However, it's probably similar to the capitalization of the common names of species: the trend in English seems to be to less and less use of capitals. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking through the first 200 hits on Google Scholar and the first 100 on Google Books (I was getting tired), there seems to be a fairly even split between the upper case and lower case 'c'. It is certainly true that those using the upper case 'c' are mainly (but not exclusively) before 1980. Most recent papers use the lower case, as in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Mike, there we are, English was never set in stone (pardon the near-pun) and it's on the move again - guess I may have to go with the flow. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Units clarification and consistency
Throughout the article units are expressed in short form, and in words. The first time it is used as m, there is no explanation of which unit it means, nor is there a boilerplate stating the common units used in the article. While it can be gleaned from context, this can cause confusion for users who hop between imperial and metric systems of units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.136.155 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)