Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian explosion task force is a group of editors aiming to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Cambrian explosion.

Goals
The Cambrian explosion article was reviewed by the scientific journal Nature on December 14, 2005, and found to be heavily error-laden. It has since undergone substantial reworking, but successive editors have struggled to find a compromise between scientific accuracy and easy accessibility.

This task force aims to resolve this trade-off, bring the article first to a "Good Article" standard, and ultimately to a "Featured Article" status worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia's main page.

Hopefully, the task force will create many "good articles" on smaller aspects of the explosion as "colateral damage".

Approach
The article must present the subject in a way that is easy for a complete newcomer to understand, while retaining informative content to engage the more advanced reader. This will be accomplished by creating a streamlined main article, with links to in-depth "main articles" addressing the key aspects of the explosion. It is hoped that by providing this "two-tier" approach to the article, a balance between readability and scientific accuracy can be achieved.

Work will take place in two stage: first, the articles to which the main page will link must be created, expanded, and brought up to a standard where they can act to support the main article. Once these pages are in good shape, content can be removed from the main article, which can be restructured as time goes on.

Task list
We are currently in stage one of the construction. Using the information available in the main article, and further material as necessary, we hope to create and expand articles pertaining to all key aspects of the Cambrian explosion.

Please check the table below for an article which interests you or which you could improve. You are also welcome to add to and update the table as needs be.

Completed articles

 * Move articles to this list when they reach the required standard, and contain the necessary explosion-related information.

Main article
While our attention is currently focussed on the peripheral articles listed above, we are also aiming to take the main article to Good article status – i.e. to meet the criteria below.

1. It is well written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Work in progress...
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:
 * lead sections
 * layout
 * jargon
 * words to avoid
 * fiction
 * N/A
 * and list incorporation

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * Work in progress...
 * (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;
 * Work in progress...
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * Fine.

3. It is broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * I think so – any suggestions of areas needing coverage are welcome!
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Yes.

4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Hopefully yes

5. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No disputes

6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Work in progress

Participation
Everybody is encouraged to help out with the tasks listed above, as they wish! You may also wish to add this page to your watchlist to keep an eye on developments.

Anyone wishing to formally indicate their membership of the project is encouraged to add their signature to the list below:


 * Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith609  Talk  13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprise! -- Philcha (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a better place to put my hobbies to use than many. Aderksen (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to helping - if I find the time!|| instantn00dle 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will make random expansions to stubs   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hza a 9 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As part of my humble work in the WikiProject Arthropods. LeónHormiga (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Resources

 * Tools: WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion/Tools

Project banner
Place onto any new article's talk page for it to be recognised and assessed under the scope of this task force. An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters and helps organise relevant articles for improvement. When assessed, the class and importance parameters are filled in, like this:

and the banner looks like this: Shortcuts: WikiProject Geology, WPGEOLOGY, WPGeology, WP Geology

The article is classified in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Cambrian explosion articles. For more information visit the WikiProject Geology assessment page: WikiProject Geology/Assessment

Navbox
CEXNAV adds the navbox on the right to an articles.