Talk:Kirtlandian/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

1. Notability, maybe not the best word, but scope width certainly is in doubt, which means not the information from the article should be deleted, but it needs to be reworked, as suggested at the talk page
2. This status is on-going for almost 4 years; needs to be resolved; a notability tag on a GA is contradictory.
3. 9 references are very poor, especially if there are more available (listed under Further reading)
4. In general, this needs another set of eyes and in-depth review
5. @IJReid:, @RockMagnetist:, @Aircorn:, @Hemiauchenia:, @Mikenorton:, @FunkMonk:, @Jens Lallensack:

Tisquesusa (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The broadness criteria is probably your best bet if you are looking to delist it without deleting. I don't know how that solves the notability issue though. I don't know enough about the topic to make a call on broadness and don't have the time to look into it. Just a FYI. You have opened an individual reassessment so it is up to you to close it at the end. I can help with that. AIRcorn (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: when someone opens a reassessment, it is their responsibility to notify the relevant WikiProjects as well as the significant contributors, and the reassessment should not be closed until they have had a chance to respond, typically at least seven days. See the WP:GAR page, step 5 under Individual Reassessment, for further information including a useful template with a standardized notification message (the same is done for community reassessments). Also, as you have opened this as an individual reassessment rather than a community reassessment, you've taken the role of in-depth reviewer. If you're not prepared to do that, then this should be a community reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The GA Reassessment appears automatically at WP Geology, I have seen that before, I pinged other geology and paleontology writers too for their comments. Individual or community, whatever method is irrelevant to the fact there is a notability tag on a GA, I haven't checked all GAs, but I think that is pretty unique, especially for such a long time. There was already an ongoing "reassessment" on the talk page of the article, maybe not formally listed as such, but again that is irrelevant for the problems with the GA article. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The only thing that I have to add to my comments in 2015 is that I looked for sources postdating 2015 and wasn't able to find any. All the search results are just citations of older articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I no longer care what happens to the article. It's old and decrepit, not really relevant to anything I'd work on in the future, and causes so much trouble just by the question of being notable enough. Maybe eventually when there's a "cretaceous land fauna stages" article this can be merged there, but until then I don't see where the information is better suited to going. Being cited by few authors doesn't make something automatically unnotable, there are a great many articles about organisms that have only ever been more than mentioned in their original descriptive paper. The point has and will always remain, there is some useful information in the article: the list of taxa that are known or predicted to have coexisted at the same time and place. The question of notability shouldn't create a verdict on whether the article remains a GA or not, the question of notability should result in a verdict of whether the article and all its information should be deleted. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @IJReid: I don't think the information in the article should be removed - just moved. Much of it is organized around the formations, and the articles on some (Williams Fork Formation, Ringbone Formation) are pathetic stubs that would be much improved with the information from this article. The hypothetical stage could even be mentioned in the articles on the Kirtlandian and Fruitvale formations. Much of the stratigraphy section has no obvious home, though. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I can't say I know much about the subject, but I am also a bit unsure what this discussion is suggesting; that it should not be a separate article, or that it is not fit for GA? Because anything that is notable enough to have an article is theoretically notable enough for GA (that is, any articles on Wikipedia). FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I pinged you as one of the most prolific paleontology writers. What needs to happen is resolving the stalemate situation of a notability? tag on a GA. The tag/question of notability is not really the correct one, as even if a small group of researchers uses this age, it is notable. What I see as option is add more refs (and they are available, see further reading) to improve the article to better GA status and increase its "notability". I have destubbed the two formations linked above, but generally the US paleontological geology (formations to a decent C/B level status) is surprisingly poorly covered for such a large editor base. I can do some more work later on this topic but also have my own projects, so other editors ought to step in too. In essence, the issue was raised by @RockMagnetist:, I just formalized it more with a reassessment request. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But we can't do anything to "improve" the notability of a subject, that is something determined by the sources. All we can do is reflect the sources. So we need to establish first whether the article reflects the sources well or not. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No sure, I agree. The "notability" (wrong term, more like "scope width") will improve if more sources are included by authors not related to Sullivan, who coined the term. That is what I meant. There are already quite some available now, but more may be found, added and included later. At first glance this specific age is much less used than the biochronology of the SALMAs/NALMAs, the South African Assemblage Zones or the local subdivisions used in New Zealand, the Paleozoic or others. Off for other stuff now, cheers. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa and FunkMonk: Some of the sources in Further reading were discussed in Talk:Kirtlandian#Notability, in particular Burns (2008) and Russell (1975). Two of the papers have Sullivan and Lucas in the author list; and Suazo (2012) is an abstract with just a bare mention of the Kirtlandian. Nothing there. I have invested a lot of time looking for a suitable source and found nothing.

This discussion has been going in circles. Someone besides IJReid and I needs to read these sources carefully and decide whether there is any basis for notability. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Could you conclude this GAR? --MrClog (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: This really needs to be closed. If I don't get a response in the next few days I will close it as kept and open an AFD to determine the notability issue. This has dragged on too long and needs to be solved one way or another. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Discussions of notability haven't been very productive. Maybe a proposal to merge the content into some articles including Williams Fork Formation and the Ringbone Formation would be more effective. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking back through the talk page I see you mentioned this over a year ago and got no complaints. Maybe we should just boldly do it and see what happens. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so. I won't be able to do it for the next couple of weeks because of real-life pressures. You're welcome to have a go. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: If we are looking to delete this article, its contents would likely go to Dinosaur paleobiogeography if anywhere. As for notability, any article that actually references the Kirtlandian has Sullivan as one of the authors   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay merged into Dinosaur paleobiogeography. The Judithian and Edmontonian ones seem to suffer from similar issues too and maybe should also be merged. I will leave any more to better subject matter editors. Will close this now. AIRcorn (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)