Talk:Eoarchean

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Mid‑importance Talk:Eoarchean is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

this page needs a clean up! sure its low importance but this is sloppy as! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBloomberg (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this page is not of low importance - only if the era of the origin of Life is rated as non-important. References are given in this stub for further improvement. The Eoarchean has the potential to link the evolutionary and geologic projects at gras roots level! --Lankenau (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology you may attract a larger audience of technical pepople who can assist you. You are free to change it but should probably check with the geology people for their importance grading scale criteria. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 10:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the erased chronology is important as easy tool to switch between geologic eras and periods. Please restore! --Lankenau (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this: Some interpretations of the fossil record suggest prokaryote forms may have evolved from protobionts late in this era. See Abiogenesis for details.?

That Some interpretations... is weaseling. Whose interpretations? Need some specifics here rather than a vague see abiogenesis. And that article was/is in flux now it seems. If this is referring to the Zn-world material, then once that's settled a link to a specific section in abiogenesis would perhaps be in order with a more specific note to replace the some interpretations. Vsmith (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, as the text is right now it is perfectly fine with me. I did not mean anything regarding to "fossils". I thought the chronology diagram that links to other Eons was removed but I mixed that up with something else. - With regard to your "vague" statement (not a problem at all with me) just as general info: In scientific papers matters are usually too complicated, such that published material would become too extensive to be repeated over and over again. Therefore, research and review papers hint (besides there new data or conceptional insights) toward other peer-reviewed papers (in Wiki it would be another article with extensive citations) that have more specific (i.e. experimental or observational) information. Everything fine here, and you probably are aware of all this anyway, cheers DL. --Lankenau (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have one again!

Category:Geologic time scale 2

That good?Assistant N (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]