This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Radiocarbon dating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
![]() | Radiocarbon dating is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2020, and on July 6, 2023. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved as part of WikiConference North America, 2016. |
![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 16 November 2017 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Mike Christie; et al. (1 June 2018).
"Radiocarbon dating" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 1 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2018.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q55120317.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proper bibliographic information is missing for Ref.53 of the current version, "Pasquier-Cardina et al. (1999), pp. 200–201." My guess is, it was meant to cite a paper by Pasquier-Cardin et al., not Pasquier-Cardina;
However, unfortunately, I'm unable to access the paper beyond its abstract. Can anybody confirm the content and revise the citation? Thanks. -- Deer hunter ( talk) 15:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The origin of 14C from the nuclear reaction with a neutron is undisputed today. But where do the neutrons come from? Since neutrons decay with a half-life comparable to the transit time of light from the Sun, objects that are much farther away cannot be the explanation. Franz Scheerer aus Wiesbaden ( talk) 11:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the graph for C14 decay, which was just added to the lead, for a couple of reasons. I think a graph like this is a good idea but I have a couple of questions. (There's a spelling error in the caption, FYI, for when it's re-added.) One problem is I tried to check the source and am getting a security error, so there's apparently a problem (probably temporary) with the website. CactiStaccingCrane, if you have access, can you explain what makes that website reliable? A second issue is that I don't think it belongs in the lead -- I think the "Principles" section would be a better fit, since that's where decay is covered. I also wonder if it's necessary to be clear what half-life is used for the graph, since the Libby half-life is used in C14 calculations. Presumably this graph uses 5730 years, which is appropriate for the physical details. And I think the caption needs to be more explicit about what it shows rather than just saying there's a correspondence. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The first half of the article is quite text-heavy. It would be nice to find an engaging image for the lead. There aren't a lot of great options on Commons, though. Maybe File:Mummy tooth sampling.jpg, but I'm not sure having an image of human remains right up front is wise? – Joe ( talk) 18:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the last paragraph in the article (under the section heading of "Impact" states: "Researchers have studied other radioactive isotopes created by cosmic rays to determine if they could also be used to assist in dating objects of archaeological interest; such isotopes include 3He, 10Be, 21Ne, 26Al, and 36Cl. Thus, this sentence asserts that Helium-3 and Neon-21 are radioactive. They are not; they are stable isotopes. 47.205.67.147 ( talk) 17:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Mike I am reading Jennifer French's 2021 Palaeolithic Europe, which covers the period down to 15,000 years BP, and on page 215 she comments that radiocarbon dates for her period are of inadequate precision to trace some demographic processes because they are before "the more reliable dendrochronology-based part of the 14C calibration curve", which only goes back to ~13,910 cal BP as of 2020 (see [1]). The article does discuss tree ring calibration and in brackets that it goes back 13,900 years, but unless I have missed the relevant passage I do not think it spells out clearly that radiocarbon dating is more accurate for this period than for earlier ones for which exact proxies are not available. Do you agree and do you think this is worth spelling out? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Just looking at the abstract I don't think we can say "close to annual dating for much of the period"; the source only has "for certain time ranges", which could mean less than half of the range. Perhaps just "for part of the period" would work. Or does the body of the cited article support "much of"? Again just looking at the abstract I think we'd also need more support for "wider error bars", but perhaps French's book would provide that if the body of the article doesn't. If you agree, go ahead and make the change -- I'm off to work in a few minutes. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
One reason I reverted is that the changes led to repetition -- the mention of the Nobel Prize and date range of the dating method are already in the lead. If they're to be moved up, they shouldn't also be mentioned lower down in the lead. Another reason is that the existing lead structure mentions them where they come naturally. Yes, they're important points, but I don't think it's necessary to mention them right at the top -- particularly the Nobel Prize.
Can we please follow the WP:BRD recommendations? Once an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page rather than redone. This page has other watchers who may have an opinion; let's see what they think of the proposed changes first. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
ca. in the range between 1,000 and 50,000 years) which is unsourced and incorrect: with bomb curve dating, you can date the cells in your own body, if you want. – Joe ( talk) 08:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Radiocarbon dating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
![]() | Radiocarbon dating is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2020, and on July 6, 2023. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved as part of WikiConference North America, 2016. |
![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 16 November 2017 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Mike Christie; et al. (1 June 2018).
"Radiocarbon dating" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 1 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2018.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q55120317.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proper bibliographic information is missing for Ref.53 of the current version, "Pasquier-Cardina et al. (1999), pp. 200–201." My guess is, it was meant to cite a paper by Pasquier-Cardin et al., not Pasquier-Cardina;
However, unfortunately, I'm unable to access the paper beyond its abstract. Can anybody confirm the content and revise the citation? Thanks. -- Deer hunter ( talk) 15:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The origin of 14C from the nuclear reaction with a neutron is undisputed today. But where do the neutrons come from? Since neutrons decay with a half-life comparable to the transit time of light from the Sun, objects that are much farther away cannot be the explanation. Franz Scheerer aus Wiesbaden ( talk) 11:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the graph for C14 decay, which was just added to the lead, for a couple of reasons. I think a graph like this is a good idea but I have a couple of questions. (There's a spelling error in the caption, FYI, for when it's re-added.) One problem is I tried to check the source and am getting a security error, so there's apparently a problem (probably temporary) with the website. CactiStaccingCrane, if you have access, can you explain what makes that website reliable? A second issue is that I don't think it belongs in the lead -- I think the "Principles" section would be a better fit, since that's where decay is covered. I also wonder if it's necessary to be clear what half-life is used for the graph, since the Libby half-life is used in C14 calculations. Presumably this graph uses 5730 years, which is appropriate for the physical details. And I think the caption needs to be more explicit about what it shows rather than just saying there's a correspondence. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The first half of the article is quite text-heavy. It would be nice to find an engaging image for the lead. There aren't a lot of great options on Commons, though. Maybe File:Mummy tooth sampling.jpg, but I'm not sure having an image of human remains right up front is wise? – Joe ( talk) 18:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the last paragraph in the article (under the section heading of "Impact" states: "Researchers have studied other radioactive isotopes created by cosmic rays to determine if they could also be used to assist in dating objects of archaeological interest; such isotopes include 3He, 10Be, 21Ne, 26Al, and 36Cl. Thus, this sentence asserts that Helium-3 and Neon-21 are radioactive. They are not; they are stable isotopes. 47.205.67.147 ( talk) 17:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Mike I am reading Jennifer French's 2021 Palaeolithic Europe, which covers the period down to 15,000 years BP, and on page 215 she comments that radiocarbon dates for her period are of inadequate precision to trace some demographic processes because they are before "the more reliable dendrochronology-based part of the 14C calibration curve", which only goes back to ~13,910 cal BP as of 2020 (see [1]). The article does discuss tree ring calibration and in brackets that it goes back 13,900 years, but unless I have missed the relevant passage I do not think it spells out clearly that radiocarbon dating is more accurate for this period than for earlier ones for which exact proxies are not available. Do you agree and do you think this is worth spelling out? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Just looking at the abstract I don't think we can say "close to annual dating for much of the period"; the source only has "for certain time ranges", which could mean less than half of the range. Perhaps just "for part of the period" would work. Or does the body of the cited article support "much of"? Again just looking at the abstract I think we'd also need more support for "wider error bars", but perhaps French's book would provide that if the body of the article doesn't. If you agree, go ahead and make the change -- I'm off to work in a few minutes. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
One reason I reverted is that the changes led to repetition -- the mention of the Nobel Prize and date range of the dating method are already in the lead. If they're to be moved up, they shouldn't also be mentioned lower down in the lead. Another reason is that the existing lead structure mentions them where they come naturally. Yes, they're important points, but I don't think it's necessary to mention them right at the top -- particularly the Nobel Prize.
Can we please follow the WP:BRD recommendations? Once an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page rather than redone. This page has other watchers who may have an opinion; let's see what they think of the proposed changes first. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
ca. in the range between 1,000 and 50,000 years) which is unsourced and incorrect: with bomb curve dating, you can date the cells in your own body, if you want. – Joe ( talk) 08:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)