Talk:Nama assemblage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I created a file that might be useful[edit]

For when this article gets expanded and can handle more media, this upload gives context to the Nama Assemblage's significantly higher relative rate of faunal turnover:

During the Nama assemblage, extinction rates outpaced origination, leading to a decline in biodiversity.[1]

Brooklaika (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, amazing! I'm planning to write more about the article in these next days and nominate it to WP:DYK! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Would you be able to clarify what is being stated in the second sentence of the "Biota" section? the middle portion regarding the 550ma seems to be out of place as currently written.--Kevmin § 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the article is still a bit hard to parse for anyone reading it for the first time, but it does conform to the sources used. The article is new enough and long enough, with reliable sourcing and no close paraphrasing identified. I think we are good to go at this point.--Kevmin § 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Evans, Scott D.; Tu, Chenyi; Rizzo, Adriana; Surprenant, Rachel L.; Boan, Phillip C.; McCandless, Heather; Marshall, Nathan; Xiao, Shuhai; Droser, Mary L. (15 November 2022). "Environmental drivers of the first major animal extinction across the Ediacaran White Sea-Nama transition". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (46): e2207475119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11907475E. doi:10.1073/pnas.2207475119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9674242. PMID 36343248.