"Manual archive    

 == Cambrian explosion == 

 Fair points.  My approach was to lay down the evidence first, then interpret it in the later section, but it doesn't seem ideal.  Perhaps as you say each section could conclude with a ""why are you telling me this, then"", then the article could conclude with a semi-repetitive ""conclusion"" drawing things together.  Pretty much any good piece of writing ends with a conclusion, but they seem to be frowned upon at WP.  In terms of ""types of organism preserved"", what are the salient points that would define a ""type""?   ( –   

 :I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to the sub-article.  Yes, these need a lot of work.  One could probably write a book on ""Burgess shale type preservation"", and I certainly intend to spend some quality time with that page at some point.  ( –   

 == Refs / URLs == 

 DOIs act as URLs, and usually lead to at least an abstract.  PMC and PMIDs are usually useful too.  The citation tool has no way of finding a URL that doesn't fall into the previous categories unless it is explicitly supplied (for example, if you access it via the ""scholar"" interface).   ( –   

 :There was recently a debate at Template_talk:Cite journal about whether the title should be linked (to point to the doi) if a DOI, but no URL, was specified.  I can't remember the details but I think it fizzled out somewhat.  ( –   

  

 == Agronomic revolution == 

 Hey, I've just started work on the article for the Agronomic revolution.  If we get it up to a decent standard in the next four days, it could be featured on the main page as a new article (in the ""Did you know"" section).  Just thought I'd flag it up if you wanted to help expand it a bit!  ( –   

 :Neither had I! (-:  I'll be largely basing it on the Seilacher paper, and if I get keen on references within. I asked because you sounded like you knew a bit about the chemistry of things - as soon as anyone mentions  to me I tend to switch off!  ( –   

 ::So we're to stagger into it leaning on each other like a couple of drunks?    

 :::Well, I know next-to-nothing about at least 90% of the articles I create before I start writing them.  But one reference tends to lead to another, and I like to think that most of my contributions end up being reasonably comprehensive.   Better to knock something together than to wait for an expert to become a wikipedia editor (or vice versa). By the way, how's it looking now?  ( –   

 ::::Hey, I like your image!  But, is that a gastropod I see munching away in the background?  They didn't evolve until the late Cambrian - according to WP, at least!  If the edit's easy to make, it might be nice to also illustrate the burrow of an ""undermat miner"", which follow the boundary between the mat and the underlying substrate.  Thanks again for the addition!  ( –   

 :::::Well, I guess ""after the revolution"" doesn't have to imply immediately after... and the snail is cute!  I guess the obscure term can be attributed to Seilacher's German mother tongue.  As I understand it, the revolution worked its way from shallow waters to deep - Burgess type preservation could have continued until each little backwater had been reworked by burrowers.  ( –   

 ==End-Ediacaran extinction== 
 This collaboration lark's quite good fun, isn't it!  If you fancy taking a quick look at [[End-Edia