User:Jclerman/sandbox

About the additional text
My involvement with the original text has been until now restricted to the section on measurements and scales, computation of ages and dates, captions to the graphs, and discussion of some of the terminology. In my opinion, the other sections still need to be revised.

Much of the material in the references and/or external links should also be incorporated into the article, especially the contributions of Hessel de Vries (see discussion page) and global warming.

Also, it is my opinion that the dendrochronological contributions are better discussed in the dendrochronology article.

'''- The original proposed addition, commented -' In particular, concerning the recent proposed additional text, each one of its several statements is here followed by my questions and comments, indented. These should aid to recast the text in a more parsable version. I should be glad to clarify and/or comment on these and/or on further iterations of the text. I have followed the seemingly harsh model followed by the editors of my first radiocarbon papers. They surely helped me to draft papers accessible both to lay readers and specialists.

- comments -

Professional radiocarbon dates are currently published according to a convention, which is stated in the references given under External links, and is summarized briefly in the following.
 * The adjective "professional" seems superfluos.
 * How would the reader identify the here summarized "convention(s)" amongst the many published in the references?

It has been called "the probabilistic approach."
 * Called by whom? Is there a need to name the calibration approach? If yes, why? A citation would be helpful so the reader can find it within the publications.

The raw, or uncalibrated date, is years before present (BP), where "present" is not today's date, but is 1950, as is explained above.
 * No date "is years". The meaning appears to be that a date "is measured, expressed, or given in years".

For rough estimation purposes, an offset of 2000 years is good enough, but a BC date derived in this way is still uncalibrated.
 * What is such offest needed for?
 * It states that it is good enough. For what?
 * The radiocarbon dating method does not date only BC dates, but also AD dates.

For the purposes of calibration, the BC date is stated with a tolerance, such as 3450±50 years BP.
 * Again, radiocarbon also dates AD dates.
 * Tolerance? No need to introduce a new term. The correct term "interval of significance" should have been used above and also here.

This is not a mechanical tolerance, but a statistical one; that is, measurement took into consideration the variance due to a number of factors, including error, and a standard deviation (STD or σ) was calculated.
 * Again, not tolerance but interval.
 * What are the factors not included in the term "error"?
 * OK, the STD was calculated, but is the interval given equal equal to one STD?

In the example, the 3450 represents the mean and the 50 is the σ. In fact valid possible dates might exceed 3500 or be less than 3400.
 * Clearer than "the 50 is the sigma" is "sigma is equal to 50".
 * The values lack units.

A normal (random, Gaussian) distribution is now assumed, which is represented by a bell-shaped curve on a graph of numbers of standard deviations on the x-axis versus probability or frequency on the y-axis.
 * Horizontal axis or abscisae is more correct since there is no named x-variable. Similarly, vertical axis or ordinates is to be preferred to y-axis. The scale of the horizontal axis should be "number of ..." rather than "numbers of ..."
 * Anyhow, it seems akward to describe a graph rather than to show it. Just linking to the relevant Wikipedia article seems more appropriate.

In this kind of distribution, 68.26% of the dates or possible dates will be found within 1σ; that is, between 3400 and 3500.
 * All results of measurements should be accompanied by the corresponding units. E.g., years BP.

This is called the 62.26% confidence interval, because you are "62.26 confident" that a given date will be in this range. 95.46% of the dates are at 2σ; that is, the confidence limits are 3350-3550.
 * From where come the value of "62.26%" and "62.26 confident"?
 * Why do you jump to 2 sigma? How do you derive the 3350-3550 interval for what you seem to imply is a 2 sigma interval?
 * Again, units are missing.

One now imposes the x-axis of the bell-shaped curve on the y-axis of a graph of calibrated dates BC (x-axis) versus raw dates BP (y-axis).
 * What do you mean by "ïmposing" an axis on another axis? If you imply an operation that can be better explained by an illustration, either include such an illustration or refer to where the reader can see it.
 * Notice again that the calibrated radiocarbon dating scale includes both the BC and the AD ranges of the Gregorian Calendar.

On such a graph, the "calibration curve" is a line of plotted points, the coordinates of which are dates BC and BP.
 * In fact, it is a line obtained by statistical smoothing of the data ("points").

In contrast to the one shown above, the curve is typically quite irregular, bending up more than once so as to give two or more possible ranges of BC dates for a given range of BP dates.
 * Isn't the curve intended to be a calibration curve?
 * If it does not represent the kinks in the "real" curve, ask the author of this one to correct it and, meanwhile refer to a suitable curve published elsewhere.

Also, the line is usually double, representing an error tolerance.
 * If a line is double, it is two lines. And they would represent the "confidence interval" rather than the "error tolerance". Not only for the sake of correctness but of internal consistency with the language used in the next sentence.

A confidence interval of BP dates translates to a confidence interval of BC dates.
 * Again BC dates rather than BC/AD dates.

However, there will be more than one confidence interval of BC dates if the calibration curve allows more than one range.
 * I guess you try to describe what is impossible to understand, without a graphic illustration, by somebody who does not know what is a non monotonic function and the kinks in its graph.

Typically the normal curve for BP dates is shown based on the y-axis, which develops into a curve of one or more peaks for BC dates on the x-axis.
 * Again I guess you try to describe what is impossible to understand, without a graphic illustration, by somebody who does not know what is a non monotonic function and the kinks in its graph.
 * For somebody that has never carried on such a calibration, "based on the y-axis" is not understandable.

A single radiocarbon date is fully stated therefore as in the following example: 3450±50 BP
 * 68.26 probability (or confidence)
 * 3650 (86%) 3750 BC
 * 3825 (4%) 3875% BC
 * A % sign is missing for the 68.26 value.
 * It lacks to identify which dates are raw and which ones are calibrated. Since in other paragraphs calibrated dates appear expressed in "BC cal" units, use of plain "BC" appears not to be the result of a calibration.
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand how the ranges and their probabilities are derived.

In this fictitious case, the range corresponding to 3400-3500 BP uncalibrated is either 3650-3750 BC cal. or 3825-3875 BC cal.
 * Why now the 3400-3500 BP range?
 * Why without a probability value?
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand how the cal ranges and their probabilities are derived.
 * Why two ranges? Does "either or" mean that any one of both intervals is valid?
 * Has cal been defined as calibrated? Where?

The number in parenthesis states the probability associated with each range; that is, 86% of the dates will be found in the first range and 4% in the second.
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand how the ranges and their probabilities are derived.
 * "Values within parentheses" is the usual expression used instead of "numbers in parenthesis".

Sometimes fractions are used for percentages: .86, .04.
 * 86% is identical to .86, since percent=1/100
 * 4% is identical to .04, since percent=1/100

One can estimate by picking the highest-frequency range and assuming that the others are error variations, or taking the whole range, peaks included.
 * One can "estimate" what? Dates? Ranges?
 * What does "error variations" mean? How do they affect the ranges and peaks?
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand what "highest-frequency range" and "peaks" mean and how the range and peaks are determined.

Prior to this method, the intercept method of Pearson and Stuiver was commonly used; for example, Gimbutas used it in such publications as The Civilization of the Godess.
 * Using "this method" in consecutive sentences might confuse the reader as to which method each statements refers.
 * An explanation and a reference for the "intercept method of Pearson and Stuiver" are missing.
 * A reference or link to the cited Gimbutas's work is missing.

In this method, the x-intercepts of the 1σ interval are taken as end points of a range stated, for example, in this format: 7050 (6771, 6742, 6716) 6568.
 * Using "this method" in consecutive sentences might confuse the reader as to which method each statement refers.
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand what "highest-frequency range" and "peaks" mean and how the range and peaks are determined.

The numbers in parentheses are the most probable dates of the peaks of the ranges present.
 * Without a graph the uninitiated reader can not understand what "most probable dates of the peaks of the ranges" means and how the range and peaks are determined.
 * The expression "values within" is preferred to "numbers in" in this context.

This method fell out of use because it did not indicate any of the probabilities.
 * Using "this method" in consecutive sentences might confuse the reader as to which method each statement refers.
 * A citation about the "falling out of the method" would be desirable.

From Physics Today

 * Juan G. Roederer. Article (2003)
 * More on the Value of Ronald Richter's Work
 * Santos Mayo, Friedwardt Winterberg. Letters (2004)
 * Javier Luzuriaga. Letter (2005)
 * new

From A9

 * The Knowledge Web : From Electronic Agents to Stonehenge and Back -- And Other Journeys Through KnowleISBN 0684859343 dge by James Burke (22 June, 2000) - Simon & Schuster. T15.B763 1999. ISBN 0684859343


 * Evita First Lady: A Biography of Eva Peron by John Barnes (October, 1996) - Grove Press. F2849.P37.B3. ISBN 0394502892


 * Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus by Martin Gardner (March, 1990) - Prometheus Books. Q173 .G354 1981. ISBN 0879751444


 * The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science by John L. Heilbron (27 March, 2003) - Oxford University Press, USA. Q125 .O86 2003. ISBN 0195112296


 * Handbook of Vacuum Science and Technology by Dorothy Hoffman, Bawa Singh, and III, John H. Thomas (15 January, 1998) - Academic Press TJ940 .H59 1998. ISBN 0123520657


 * Companion to the History of Modern Science (Routledge Companion Encyclopaedias) by R. C. OLBY (12 August, 1996) - Routledge. Q125 .C565 1990. ISBN 0415019885


 * Fusion : The Search for Endless Energy by Robin Herman (26 October, 1990) - Cambridge University Press. QC791.73 .H47 1990. ISBN 0521383730


 * Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor by Eugene J. Mallove (01 August, 1999) - Infinite Energy Press. QC791.73 M35 1991. ISBN 0471531391


 * Ideas and Ideologies in Twentieth-Century Latin America by Leslie Bethell (13 September, 1996) - Cambridge University Press. H53.L3 I34 1996. ISBN 0521463416, ISBN 0521468337 (pbk.)


 * The Cambridge History of Latin America (The Cambridge History of Latin America) by Leslie Bethell (27 January, 1995) - Cambridge University Press. F2843 .A67 1993. ISBN 0521433762 (hard) ISBN 0521439884 (pbk.)


 * The Coming of Materials Science (Pergamon Materials Series) by R.W. Cahn (01 March, 2001) - Pergamon. ebrary. ISBN 0080426794


 * Eva Peron by Alicia Dujovne Ortiz, Alicia Dujovne Ortiz, and Shawn Fields (September, 1997) - St. Martin's Press


 * The Politics of Technology in Latin America (Unu/Intech Studies in New Technologies and Development) by M. BASTOS (06 March, 1996) - Routledge. HC130.T4 P655 1995. ISBN 0415126908


 * Latin America's International Relations and Their Domestic Consequences: War and Peace, Dependency and Autonomy, Integration and Disintegration (Ess) by Jorge I. Dominguez (March, 1994) - Garland Publishing. F1414.2 .L3275 1994. ISBN 0815314906


 * Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source by Joan Lisa Bromberg (29 September, 1982) - The MIT Press. QC791.73 .B76 1982. ISBN 0262021803


 * Bridled Ambition : Why Countries Constrain Their Nuclear Capabilities (Woodrow Wilson Center Special Studies)by Mitchell Reiss (01 April, 1995) - Woodrow Wilson Center Press. U264 .R45 1995. ISBN 0943875722, 0943875714 (pbk.)


 * Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science by A. K. Dewdney (18 March, 1997) - Wiley. ISBN 0471295868


 * Questioning Geopolitics : Political Projects in a Changing World-System by Georgi M. Derluguian and Scott L. Greer (30 July, 2000) - Praeger Paperback. ebrary. ISBN 0313310823


 * The Sun : A Biography by David Whitehouse (31 December, 2004) - John Wiley & Sons. QB 540.W55 2005. ISBN 0470092963, 0470092971 (pbk.)


 * Regional Orders at Century's Dawn by Etel Solingen (24 August, 1998) - Princeton University Press. JZ 1305.368 1998. JZ1305 .S68 1998. ISBN 0691058792, 0691058806 (pbk.)


 * The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 8: The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences (The Cambridge History of Science) by Mary Jo Nye, David C. Lindberg, and Ronald L. Numbers (28 October, 2002) - Cambridge University Press.  ISBN 0521571995

Spinoff

 * Gambini, Hugo (1999). Historia del Peronismo. F2849.G325.1999


 * Barreiro, Hipólito (2000). Juancito Sosa. F2849.P37 B33 2000


 * The Order Has Been Carried Out : History, Memory, and Meaning of a Nazi Massacre in Rome by Alessandro Portelli (08 November, 2003) - Palgrave Macmillan