Talk:Future of Earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll start making any straightforward changes I see (revert if I skew the meaning) and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!—RJH (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with viriditas that some more input on any ideas on the future of earth's lifeforms would be very helpful. Obviously it is very for specifics but some extra info could include (a) discussion of which plants are C3 and which use C4 photosynthesis (the only one I recall is corn...) - this only need be a sentence or two but otherwise is meaningless for the lay reader as is. I guess speculation on hardiest life forms - I recall reading something about insects (???)
  • I can add information about (a), but personally I'm pretty reluctant to add speculation about how life will evolve in the future because nature is full of surprises.
    • Having read Dougal Dixon and seen other material, I agree it is speculative but still feel material can be added with a prominent caveat - I was thinking more about material I'd seen talking about the hardiness of insects or thermophilic bacteria and stuff like that. There must be some scholarly work speculating on this sort of material as the article feels a bit ...erm...sterile otherwise. I think we need to add some examples of plants which do C4 photosynthesis - this gives a reader at least a broad picture to visualise. I might take a look at the reference myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I added some information based on the Ward/Brownlee work and some data on microbes.—RJH (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Once the solar luminosity is 10% higher than its current value, the global surface temperature reaches 320 K (47 °C). - would this be uniform? i.e. also at the poles?
  • Nope. I added 'average'.

• Once the supercontinent is built, plate tectonics may come to a halt. - why?
  • If I understand this paper correctly, the subduction flux drops to near zero. The subduction occurs in the oceans where the continents will merge. Once the plates are merged, there's no ocean floor to subduct and the plates come to a halt. Something has to operate to pull them apart again.

• The future of the Earth will be determined by a variety of physical factors - I'd argue that "physical" is redundant here.....
  • True, but some people conflate this type of material with spiritual beliefs. I went ahead and removed 'physical', hoping for the best.

• .....that 27% of the current ocean mass will have been subducted. - where exactly does it go?
  • It should be explained by the previous sentence in the same paragraph.—RJH (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess what I mean is how it ends up once in the mantle but on thinking about it, I guess we don't know...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I think part of it gets recycled into the atmosphere through volcanic activity. But I guess the rest just remains down there.[1]—RJH (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is funny what we editors with our interests (eg yours inorganic/astronomical, mine biological) focus on - I think this has the makings of a great article, and I am just asking a couple of other editors whether they think there is anything to add comprehensivenesswise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Biological perspective - I'm not sure if you wish to include this (it depends on if you consider "The Earth" as a physical entity or if you also include the biosphere). However, if you do, PMID 11344295 is an excellent reference on the ongoing Holocene extinction event caused by human activities, you can also look at PMID 16553315, which was a response to PMID 14712274, which generated a lot of discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just my opinion, but I think that would make a good topic for an overarching article about the global impact of humanity on the biosphere (both past and future). There's a little section under Sustainability#Global_human_impact_on_biodiversity, but it looks like it needs more development. That could then be inserted here summary style. Would that work? I'm not sure that a duplication of the above small section would be helpful.—RJH (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is tricky, the scale of this article is several orders of magnitiude bigger than the itty bitty holocene, so I see RJH's point. I am wondering whether some link or note saying "for discussion of near future, see....x might be in order. Are there any other articles which look at future developments? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most far-looking article I know of is PMID 11344283 - "The biotic crisis and the future of evolution." this was the introduction to the PNAS issue on The Future of Evolution. However, even this still focusses on the near future while humans are still around. This could be included in this article, but since it currently takes a much broader viewpoint I wouldn't argue that this is anything but a very small part of the whole picture. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just the Global warming article, I think.—RJH (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I took a crack at adding a short section on human influence, and tried not to make it controversial. Please expand if you feel the need.—RJH (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - are these the only articles on future earth history...I am surprised there are not others. I'll try to look but my connection is slow where I am which is frustrating +++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several speculative books on the future of life, but I'm not sure whether they would add much value.—RJH (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks better - I think we need a line afterwards which states something along the lines that longterm speculation of evolutionary trends are extremely diffiuclt or something like that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get the hand GA-processor-tools out now.....

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• You might get pinged on the remaining images which need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I think this is heading towards FAC - I'd recommend asking some more scientists with a biological focus if they feel there is anything missing, and some of the more technical words might be able to be substituted for plainer english without losing meaning. Nothing obvious jumped out at me but others might spot some. I think some eyes more before FAC would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)