Talk:Escalation hypothesis

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[extinction event#Major extinction events|The Big Five]] The anchor (#Major extinction events) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Article format[edit]

The format of this article seems to be a scientific paper or original research?? Chakazul (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this article for multiple issues. While it's extensively researched, it's not exactly encyclopedic. I plan to harmonize the "works cited" section with the inline footnotes. Hopefully that will assist whoever eventually assesses the article for WP:NOR and other issues.--Koppas (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this was a class assignment, but now that a MUCH better version, I think draft number 5 has been produced and will soon be under peer-review, my thesis adviser has advised me to either substantially edit this page, or completely delete it! Obviously, I am not about to do that, since, as a biologist, I think arms-races are pretty darn fascinating and people should be able to wiki them. However, as you can see, I have made some huge deletions, shortened it I think to the point where it might be comprehensible to a non-biologist, but it still needs some work. Not sure when I can get back to it, perhaps this weekend. TriversJRTriversJr (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this article is encyclopedic in that EVERY article ever written about EH is referenced therein, every article that proves or disproves any prediction of EH is included. Hence, my original goal of simply submitting it as an "area review" article. I wrote it for BSC6938:Marine Biology.TriversJr (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Koppas (and Wikipedians in general) tend to mean by "encyclopedic" isn't so much "complete" as much as "written like an encyclopedia article instead of a journal article, essay, etc." There's some good content in your piece, but the format isn't the one Wikipedia uses. Take a look at any other established page: the page starts out introducing the concept and giving a little background, then breaks down into sections, etc. WP articles don't start with Introduction: Snappy title, and don't end with Conclusion. If EH is worth a WP article (and it probably is), then it's worth formatting it properly so that WP users can access the information. If you submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal you have to follow their formats, and WP is the same. Just take a look at a few heavily-trafficked (and thus likely to be highly edited/refined) pages, and make your format follow theirs. Shouldn't take you any more than an hour, and it'd be a good academic exercise in adapting formats. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]