Wikipedia talk:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event
Further work needed on this article edit
I was pleased to see violet/riga's favourable comments, as I recently did a major edit which added all or most of most of "Casualties and survivors of the K-T extinction", "How long did the K-T extinction take?", "Maastrichtian Sea-level Regression", "Composite theories" and "Why did small predatory dinosaurs die out?".
I agree that citations are needed. I also know of further material which should be added about the end-Cretaceous marine extinction - the article is still too dino-centric.
But I am not going to spend time on this until I see good evidence that Wikipedia has resolved some internal problems. In mid-January 2007 I edited the Dinosaur article to: correct some serious mistakes in "Distinguishing characteristics"; correct the analysis of the advantages provided by dinos' erect limbs; make the "Extinction section" more balanced without making it longer (it previously mentioned only the Alvarez impact theory, and omitted to mention that a lot of other groups died out at the same time); and improved the balance and readability of some other sections. A few days later an admin reverted my edit because he / she objected to my use of bullet lists. When pointed out that I had followed the style guide on Wikipedia:Embedded_lists, I was told that nevertheless FAC reviewers would not accept bullet lists (see [1]). So the admin who reverted my edit misunderstood the rules and / or the FAC reviewers ignore the published rules and impose their own preferences.
There is no point in my contributing further to any article on paleontology until the discrepancy between the published rules and admin / FAC reviewer practice is resolved, as my contributions might be arbitrarily reverted.Philcha 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)