Talk:Middle Miocene disruption

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GEOG430Anon. Peer reviewers: EmilyDUOregon, Dinosaurphilosophy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Has this anything to do with the Middle Miocene Climate Transition? If so, that might redirect here instead of to the non-informative Miocene page as it does now. Dysmorodrepanis 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one possible cause of this, as is stated in the end. 91.153.61.172 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this can't be used as a model for anything currently happening since the West Wind Drift will be present in any future scenario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.49.41 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to the "GeoWhen" stuff is broken. Pointym5 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions to Improve this Article

This article provides insight into an important cooling period in the Miocene as well as a basis to to understanding the general trends of the Miocene as a whole. This so stated, I believe there is an opportunity to add to this article given the expansion of knowledge around the subject since its inception. Here are some things that should be looked at:

• The article is fairly brief, with only a short heading describing what the article is set to talk about. Further, the first paragraph that talks about Madelaine Bohme's study is also short and only connects back to the original heading loosely. I would suggest an expansion of these aspects to provide readers with more context around what the Mid Miocene Disruption event was and why it is considered important for study today.
• In the second paragraph citing Madelaine Bohme's study, the information provided offers insight to her findings but it seems that the information is related more specifically to what happened before this disruption. Without further explanation it is hard to understand how the study is directly related to the article title. Perhaps this knowledge is better fit in a subsection talking about how species distribution changed before and after the disruption event.
• There are only 2 references in the article when there has been much more study on this topic. It is in need of an update as far as the most recent findings and how those compare to what is already stated. I plan on adding some of this new findings to the article in the near future.
• As noted above, there is very little organization to the article. There should probably be a separate heading for the information in the second paragraph and the last line talking about oxygen 18 needs additional explanation to show how it connects. Once there has been more information added to the article, it will be easier to identify how information could be organized to more effectively communicate to the audience.

In short, more sources and content is needed, organization is lacking, and writing seems unconnected to topic at time. Other general suggestions for improvement include adding images, mentioning other/dissenting opinions and changing of some of the more technical language used to describe Bohme's study in the article. While there is a lot that can be added to this article, I think it does a good job using sources that are legit (even if seemingly unconnected) and the writing within is neutral. I look forward to being able to contribute to these changes. GEOG430Anon (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review:

I think everything being contributed to this current article is very appropriate and relates very relevantly to the existing information provided. There is not any information or data that distracts from the topic, which is essential when adding to a pre-existing article. The article appears to be neutral, with no bias claims, which is necessary with scientific information such as the topic being discussed and researched in this article. The over article is very well balanced, with the most important information receiving the most attention, and no viewpoints being over or underrepresented. All of the citations have been checked, and each link works and supports the claims being made in the article. Each source that was looked at appears to be reliable and provides information from unbiased sources. Grammar and spelling was also checked and appears to be well reviewed with no obvious mistakes. This topic is very interesting and I look forward to reading on when more edits have been made! EmilyDUOregon (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Science

What caused of Miocene why did end 49.149.106.231 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)