This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On p. 265 (the first page) of Tims & Chambers (1984) – full reference in the article – they write "The Lower Plant Assemblage material ... None of this material had been included in Lang and Cookson's papers. ... The Upper Plant Assemblage material illustrated by Lang and Cookson (1935) was collected from Killingworth Road, Yea." Thus they are saying that all of the material described by Lang and Cookson was actually from Yea. If you look at Lang and Cookson's paper, it seems clear that they were not familiar with the geography of the area. So I had put: "Tims and Chambers say that the material described by Lang and Cookson was from near Yea, some distance from the location originally given." This was removed with the comment that it wasn't supported by the source; I have now restored it. I accept that the second half of the sentence isn't in the original; it's a simple geographical inference, but if other editors aren't happy it can be removed. However the first part does appear to me to be supported by the source given. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You obviously know much more about this subject than I do. (I just decided that the coverage of paleozoology was disproportionate to paleobotany and set about adding articles on Silurian/Devonian plants; it's not my area of expertise.) I was initially surprised at a comment that I added something not in the source, because normally I'm very careful about this. It seems that I mis-interpreted Tims & Chambers, although I think that I got their paper initially from a secondary source which says what I did – however I may be wrong.
On the issue of repetition, you're right. It comes from trying to have the same structure for articles on Siluro-Devonian plants. I think a little bit is ok in the interests of making it easier for readers to find specific topics within an article, but I agree there's too much here. I'll make a few changes, but feel free to make more! Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On p. 265 (the first page) of Tims & Chambers (1984) – full reference in the article – they write "The Lower Plant Assemblage material ... None of this material had been included in Lang and Cookson's papers. ... The Upper Plant Assemblage material illustrated by Lang and Cookson (1935) was collected from Killingworth Road, Yea." Thus they are saying that all of the material described by Lang and Cookson was actually from Yea. If you look at Lang and Cookson's paper, it seems clear that they were not familiar with the geography of the area. So I had put: "Tims and Chambers say that the material described by Lang and Cookson was from near Yea, some distance from the location originally given." This was removed with the comment that it wasn't supported by the source; I have now restored it. I accept that the second half of the sentence isn't in the original; it's a simple geographical inference, but if other editors aren't happy it can be removed. However the first part does appear to me to be supported by the source given. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You obviously know much more about this subject than I do. (I just decided that the coverage of paleozoology was disproportionate to paleobotany and set about adding articles on Silurian/Devonian plants; it's not my area of expertise.) I was initially surprised at a comment that I added something not in the source, because normally I'm very careful about this. It seems that I mis-interpreted Tims & Chambers, although I think that I got their paper initially from a secondary source which says what I did – however I may be wrong.
On the issue of repetition, you're right. It comes from trying to have the same structure for articles on Siluro-Devonian plants. I think a little bit is ok in the interests of making it easier for readers to find specific topics within an article, but I agree there's too much here. I'll make a few changes, but feel free to make more! Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)