Talk:Coal ball

DYK nomination

--Σ _{^talkcontribs} 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference problem

The reference (ref name="thing" ref #7) is an archive of a paper stored on a univ website which contains deadlinks. Why not cite the actual paper (1999 Henry Barwood): "This is a DRAFT copy of a paper to be submitted to a geoscience journal." Or was it not published? The current ref fails WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Current ref #9 has similar problems - also referring to a Barwood paper. Why not use the actual paper? Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was used by the Geological Society of America. Should I cite that, as an offline source? --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If it was published by GSA, then by all means use it - references don't have to be "online". Without the journal publication it is not a WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is it: Barwood, H.L. 1995. Mineralogy and origin of coal balls. Geological Society of America North Central and South Central Section. Abstracts with Programs. p. 37. Was hoping for a journal article, but a meeting abstract is better than we have currently. Vsmith (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That information alone is not specific enough, so I've emailed Dr. Barwood for the volume and issue numbers. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have received no response, so I shall change all the "thing" references to the GSA one tomorrow. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Random mentions of coal balls...

... in this which appears to be an OCR'd version of a monthly journal from January 1906. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Age and size

• It would be good if the age of coalballs was expressed in MYA instead of just geologic time scales.
• What is the size range? Even the picture doesn't help much, depending as it does on the distance between the camera and coalball in question.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

These issues will be solved. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 06:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the size range, and will add the MYAs when I wake up. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 08:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I've added {{mya}} to the time scales I could find, though I may have missed one or two. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coal ball/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs • count) 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Coal balls, despite their name, are calcium-rich masses of permineralised life forms, generally having a round shape. Coal balls are not made of coal, despite the name."

   Done →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• why is period capitalised?

   Not done Like the other geologic time scales, you would say "Permian Period", or "Carboniferous Period" in this case. →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "exceptionally well" an adverb describing an adverb? I suggest "They can preserve are exceptional at preserving organic matter exceptionally well"

   Done →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• ", and the initial research on coal balls was carried out in Europe, and it was not until 1922 that coal balls were discovered and identified in North America in 1922"

   Done →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "coal seams" --> "coal mines"?

   Not done The coal seam (currently a redirect) has much potential to become an article. They are related to coal mining, but I believe it can stand as an article by itself. Besides that, the sources unanimously state "coal seam". →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "and European scientists did much of the early work on these objects was done by European scientists"

   Done →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "formed in situ, where organic matter are gently accumulated" or "that is, organic matter gently"

   Done →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Note I always imagined that GA reviews would involve usage of the support symbol. I seem to have been wrong. →Στc. 07:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

End note

I'm happy with the article, which is very worthy of GA status. I'd love to see this get the Star. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Discovery

Hooker and Binney didn't 'discover' coal balls, they were the first to describe them. It's an important difference. Coal balls would have been well known to the miners in the area; they were introduced to the wider scientific world by Hooker and Binney. It's must like saying Captain Cook was the discoverer of many territories in the Pacific; the long-standing inhabitants of those territories he met there would have begged to differ with him. 86.155.201.243 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The ambiguity of the word 'discovery' is demonstrated in this article as it says in the lead that coal balls were discovered in the US in 1922, then later on it says they were known in the US since the 1890s. This is confusing, and the used of 'describe' removes this ambiguity. I have edited accordingly. 86.155.201.243 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis section

Maybe I' missing something, but I can't see what the point is of the Analysis section. It just states what techniques have been used in analysis, and goes into a bit of detail as to what these techniques involve, but no results of the analysis. This section should, in my opinion, say what techniques were used and what this analysis actually showed. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The section has been renamed to 'Analytical methods'. Also, I thought that the general gist of the results had been covered in the upper sections, although I have not written anything substantial to connect them. →Στc. 07:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Which pic?

I got two pics of the National Museum of Wales coal ball (actually they have a second sectioned one but it would require a fast macro lens to get a decent pic). Which one is better:

• 
• 

©Geni 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the first image is a good example of how coal balls do not always have a round shape. →Σσς. 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference format problems

The current referencing scheme is problematic. When I click on a reference link such as #39 I am led to the reference section list which simply gives me Phillips & Peppers 1984, p. 206. So I look below, expecting at least an alphabetical listing, but no all I see is a jumbled mess entitled "Bibliography". So, I do a search for Phillips & Peppers 1984 and get nothing... then search on Phillips and scan the list for the 84 paper quite user unfriendly.
So : two problems: finding a ref is very user unfriendly and why is the two column bibliography not alphabetized? And it's s'posed to be a GA? Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you clicked on Phillips & Peppers 1984, you would have been led to the actual reference. But I've alphabetised it now. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Guess I'm old fashioned, looked rather than clicked. Anyway, I finished the alphabetizing - guess your script got tired :) Ref templates are a mess to work with, should be banned. Also moved the PD bits to the end of each to avoid ugly clutter. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway... the reason I started looking at ref#39 as support for "... providing evidence that Ukrainian and Oklahoman plants of the tropical belt were once the same." was to see whether the "same species" or... as the ref abstract says "similar botanical constituents". Don't have access to the article full text. Can you clarify the "same" there? Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The anatomically preserved plants from coal-ball peats provide the best paleobotanical evidence that coal-swamp plants of the tropical belt were the same from the Ukraine to Oklahoma. The article might be better if "providing evidence... once the same" was reworded. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the ref format, seems that Template:Rp which allows for page #s without the problems of the doubled ref sections of the currently used system. Currently when I got down to the reference associated with "Phillips & Peppers 1984" then I have no easy route back to the cited loc in the text. Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the current reference style is fine. With it, I can quickly identify the sentences that used information from a certain page, something that I find useful when I read over the sources. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, you can return by pressing the browser's back button. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Iron sulfides ...

I've added links to pyrite and marcasite in parens after iron sulfide as they are common in coal beds. If the ref specifies one or the other then should be changed. An iron sulfide link goes to a dab page. Does the reference discuss the chemical results further? Specifically, does the nitric acid dissolve/remove the problematic sulfides or are they isolated from the organic materials by the paraffin? I don't have access to the references. Also in searching for the Chitaley reference the spelling in the title is permineralizations. Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent you an email containing many of the sources I've used in the article.

The sources tend to use "irun sulfide" and "iron pyrite". As for Chitaley, I'll give it another read tomorrow, but I don't feel like I understand it well enough to write about it. Based on the information from the other Chitaley-related sources, I have a question: is her technique one for preserving peels for storage or for actually peeling coal balls? →Σσς. (Sigma) 09:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Email received, but the download failed and my system also doesn't recognize the file extension.

From the abstract of Chitaley's paper, it looks like the technique described is for cleaning (removal of surface oxidation with the acid) and then prevention of further oxidation of the pyrite by covering w/ paraffin for storage. Given that I'd say the acid application is preparation of the surface by removing surface oxidation products perhaps prior to "peeling" and then preservation w/ the paraffin for storage.

As for the iron sulfide bit, maybe would be better to replace with iron pyrite link (redirects to pyrite) and drop the marcasite unless it is mentioned in the refs. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You could use 7-zip to open that, or I can give you the link to a .zip which I am uploading right now.

So Chitaley's process isn't a revision of the peel technique at all? →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

T.N. Taylor

This source continues on to note, "... about Carboniferous plants and ecosystems, we argue that there has been a concomitant decrease in attention directed at the microbial life also preserved in many cherts and coal balls," wrote T.N. Taylor and colleagues, University of Kansas (see also Paleontology). ... Taylor and colleagues published their study in Palaios (The Advantage Of Thin Section Preparations Over Acetate Peels In The Study Of Late Paleozoic Fungi And Other Microorganisms. Palaios, 2011;26(3-4):239-244)." Taylor also wrote, "•Taylor, T. N. and W. N. Stewart. 1964. "The Paleozoic seed Mitrospermum in American coal balls" Palaeontographica. 115B. 50-58." and "•Taylor, T. N.. 1962. "The coal ball peel technique" Fast Journal. 5-6." See Thomas N. Taylor. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to the article in light of this information. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Coal balls literature now has preponderance of evidence for sulfate reduction origin

Perhaps five years ago I inserted several references to sulfate reduction as a mechanism for coal ball formation, including definitive carbon isotopes. I was disappointed to see them removed (one ref survived), partly because I was discovering sulfate reduction of methane at that time, first described at length by Michaelis et al from Dead Sea floor carbonate deposits filmed from submersibles. The authors have retained - preferred - the Victorian mystification to the modern revelations. I do not care to fight over the issue, but it has qualified my perception of Wikipedia, which I support wholeheartedly, and with contributions. I regret that many high schools attempt to disallow Wiki refs in homework, and I counter that it is no less reliable than most information sources, and that examples such as this cultivate a healthy skepticism about Everything. My personal interest was piqued when I visited a coal mine where a coal seam had vanished into carbonate balls at significant cost to the mine. I had a Eureka! moment when I was assessing carbonate isotopes in oil shale groundwater, somewhat before that seam's demise was attributed to seawater intrusion by others who had previously described the situation as a (black magic?) conundrum. I learnt a lot about fads and prejudices in geology from that, even 30 years after consensus had embraced the plate tectonics revolution. It would all make a good moral tale. I regret the coal balls entry here is still hiding under the shellac of harumph mystification. Ah, it seems you have removed even the recent refs to isotopes. That is truly head-in-the-sand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:8800:6589:2F59:FB3C:7190 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coal ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65MsaJfDU?url=http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/about-isgs/heritage/noe.shtml to http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/about-isgs/heritage/noe.shtml
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65MsdHHUJ?url=http://library.isgs.uiuc.edu/Pubs/pdfs/circulars/c480.pdf to http://library.isgs.uiuc.edu/Pubs/pdfs/circulars/c480.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61DXItxK1?url=http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/mrl/centralfacilities/xray/xray-basics/index.html to http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/mrl/centralfacilities/xray/xray-basics/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

1796 scientific description of coal balls

Ran across a 1796 description of them (although it doesn't use the term):

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1796.0016

Written by Benjamin Outram of all people.