Coal ball has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 31, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
coal balls are not made of
coal? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Coal ball received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Σ talk contribs 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The reference (ref name="thing" ref #7) is an archive of a paper stored on a univ website which contains deadlinks. Why not cite the actual paper (1999 Henry Barwood): "This is a DRAFT copy of a paper to be submitted to a geoscience journal." Or was it not published? The current ref fails WP:RS. Vsmith ( talk) 14:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Current ref #9 has similar problems - also referring to a Barwood paper. Why not use the actual paper? Vsmith ( talk) 14:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
... in this which appears to be an OCR'd version of a monthly journal from January 1906. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ( talk • contribs • count) 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the article, which is very worthy of GA status. I'd love to see this get the Star. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hooker and Binney didn't 'discover' coal balls, they were the first to describe them. It's an important difference. Coal balls would have been well known to the miners in the area; they were introduced to the wider scientific world by Hooker and Binney. It's must like saying Captain Cook was the discoverer of many territories in the Pacific; the long-standing inhabitants of those territories he met there would have begged to differ with him. 86.155.201.243 ( talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I' missing something, but I can't see what the point is of the Analysis section. It just states what techniques have been used in analysis, and goes into a bit of detail as to what these techniques involve, but no results of the analysis. This section should, in my opinion, say what techniques were used and what this analysis actually showed. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I got two pics of the National Museum of Wales coal ball (actually they have a second sectioned one but it would require a fast macro lens to get a decent pic). Which one is better:
© Geni 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The current referencing scheme is problematic. When I click on a reference link such as #39 I am led to the reference section list which simply gives me Phillips & Peppers 1984, p. 206. So I look below, expecting at least an alphabetical listing, but no all I see is a jumbled mess entitled "Bibliography". So, I do a search for Phillips & Peppers 1984 and get nothing... then search on Phillips and scan the list for the 84 paper quite user unfriendly.
So : two problems: finding a ref is very user unfriendly and why is the two column bibliography not alphabetized? And it's s'posed to be a GA?
Vsmith (
talk)
13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added links to pyrite and marcasite in parens after iron sulfide as they are common in coal beds. If the ref specifies one or the other then should be changed. An iron sulfide link goes to a dab page. Does the reference discuss the chemical results further? Specifically, does the nitric acid dissolve/remove the problematic sulfides or are they isolated from the organic materials by the paraffin? I don't have access to the references. Also in searching for the Chitaley reference the spelling in the title is permineralizations. Vsmith ( talk) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
This source continues on to note, "... about Carboniferous plants and ecosystems, we argue that there has been a concomitant decrease in attention directed at the microbial life also preserved in many cherts and coal balls," wrote T.N. Taylor and colleagues, University of Kansas (see also Paleontology). ... Taylor and colleagues published their study in Palaios (The Advantage Of Thin Section Preparations Over Acetate Peels In The Study Of Late Paleozoic Fungi And Other Microorganisms. Palaios, 2011;26(3-4):239-244)." Taylor also wrote, "•Taylor, T. N. and W. N. Stewart. 1964. "The Paleozoic seed Mitrospermum in American coal balls" Palaeontographica. 115B. 50-58." and "•Taylor, T. N.. 1962. "The coal ball peel technique" Fast Journal. 5-6." See Thomas N. Taylor. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps five years ago I inserted several references to sulfate reduction as a mechanism for coal ball formation, including definitive carbon isotopes. I was disappointed to see them removed (one ref survived), partly because I was discovering sulfate reduction of methane at that time, first described at length by Michaelis et al from Dead Sea floor carbonate deposits filmed from submersibles. The authors have retained - preferred - the Victorian mystification to the modern revelations. I do not care to fight over the issue, but it has qualified my perception of Wikipedia, which I support wholeheartedly, and with contributions. I regret that many high schools attempt to disallow Wiki refs in homework, and I counter that it is no less reliable than most information sources, and that examples such as this cultivate a healthy skepticism about Everything. My personal interest was piqued when I visited a coal mine where a coal seam had vanished into carbonate balls at significant cost to the mine. I had a Eureka! moment when I was assessing carbonate isotopes in oil shale groundwater, somewhat before that seam's demise was attributed to seawater intrusion by others who had previously described the situation as a (black magic?) conundrum. I learnt a lot about fads and prejudices in geology from that, even 30 years after consensus had embraced the plate tectonics revolution. It would all make a good moral tale. I regret the coal balls entry here is still hiding under the shellac of harumph mystification. Ah, it seems you have removed even the recent refs to isotopes. That is truly head-in-the-sand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:8800:6589:2F59:FB3C:7190 ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Coal ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Ran across a 1796 description of them (although it doesn't use the term):
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1796.0016
Written by Benjamin Outram of all people.
Coal ball has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 31, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
coal balls are not made of
coal? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Coal ball received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Σ talk contribs 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The reference (ref name="thing" ref #7) is an archive of a paper stored on a univ website which contains deadlinks. Why not cite the actual paper (1999 Henry Barwood): "This is a DRAFT copy of a paper to be submitted to a geoscience journal." Or was it not published? The current ref fails WP:RS. Vsmith ( talk) 14:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Current ref #9 has similar problems - also referring to a Barwood paper. Why not use the actual paper? Vsmith ( talk) 14:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
... in this which appears to be an OCR'd version of a monthly journal from January 1906. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ( talk • contribs • count) 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the article, which is very worthy of GA status. I'd love to see this get the Star. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hooker and Binney didn't 'discover' coal balls, they were the first to describe them. It's an important difference. Coal balls would have been well known to the miners in the area; they were introduced to the wider scientific world by Hooker and Binney. It's must like saying Captain Cook was the discoverer of many territories in the Pacific; the long-standing inhabitants of those territories he met there would have begged to differ with him. 86.155.201.243 ( talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I' missing something, but I can't see what the point is of the Analysis section. It just states what techniques have been used in analysis, and goes into a bit of detail as to what these techniques involve, but no results of the analysis. This section should, in my opinion, say what techniques were used and what this analysis actually showed. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I got two pics of the National Museum of Wales coal ball (actually they have a second sectioned one but it would require a fast macro lens to get a decent pic). Which one is better:
© Geni 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The current referencing scheme is problematic. When I click on a reference link such as #39 I am led to the reference section list which simply gives me Phillips & Peppers 1984, p. 206. So I look below, expecting at least an alphabetical listing, but no all I see is a jumbled mess entitled "Bibliography". So, I do a search for Phillips & Peppers 1984 and get nothing... then search on Phillips and scan the list for the 84 paper quite user unfriendly.
So : two problems: finding a ref is very user unfriendly and why is the two column bibliography not alphabetized? And it's s'posed to be a GA?
Vsmith (
talk)
13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added links to pyrite and marcasite in parens after iron sulfide as they are common in coal beds. If the ref specifies one or the other then should be changed. An iron sulfide link goes to a dab page. Does the reference discuss the chemical results further? Specifically, does the nitric acid dissolve/remove the problematic sulfides or are they isolated from the organic materials by the paraffin? I don't have access to the references. Also in searching for the Chitaley reference the spelling in the title is permineralizations. Vsmith ( talk) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
This source continues on to note, "... about Carboniferous plants and ecosystems, we argue that there has been a concomitant decrease in attention directed at the microbial life also preserved in many cherts and coal balls," wrote T.N. Taylor and colleagues, University of Kansas (see also Paleontology). ... Taylor and colleagues published their study in Palaios (The Advantage Of Thin Section Preparations Over Acetate Peels In The Study Of Late Paleozoic Fungi And Other Microorganisms. Palaios, 2011;26(3-4):239-244)." Taylor also wrote, "•Taylor, T. N. and W. N. Stewart. 1964. "The Paleozoic seed Mitrospermum in American coal balls" Palaeontographica. 115B. 50-58." and "•Taylor, T. N.. 1962. "The coal ball peel technique" Fast Journal. 5-6." See Thomas N. Taylor. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps five years ago I inserted several references to sulfate reduction as a mechanism for coal ball formation, including definitive carbon isotopes. I was disappointed to see them removed (one ref survived), partly because I was discovering sulfate reduction of methane at that time, first described at length by Michaelis et al from Dead Sea floor carbonate deposits filmed from submersibles. The authors have retained - preferred - the Victorian mystification to the modern revelations. I do not care to fight over the issue, but it has qualified my perception of Wikipedia, which I support wholeheartedly, and with contributions. I regret that many high schools attempt to disallow Wiki refs in homework, and I counter that it is no less reliable than most information sources, and that examples such as this cultivate a healthy skepticism about Everything. My personal interest was piqued when I visited a coal mine where a coal seam had vanished into carbonate balls at significant cost to the mine. I had a Eureka! moment when I was assessing carbonate isotopes in oil shale groundwater, somewhat before that seam's demise was attributed to seawater intrusion by others who had previously described the situation as a (black magic?) conundrum. I learnt a lot about fads and prejudices in geology from that, even 30 years after consensus had embraced the plate tectonics revolution. It would all make a good moral tale. I regret the coal balls entry here is still hiding under the shellac of harumph mystification. Ah, it seems you have removed even the recent refs to isotopes. That is truly head-in-the-sand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:8800:6589:2F59:FB3C:7190 ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Coal ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Ran across a 1796 description of them (although it doesn't use the term):
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1796.0016
Written by Benjamin Outram of all people.