Talk:Trace fossil/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Trace fossil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
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): BOUDIANA. Peer reviewers: Osborne147.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Update Suggestions
After reviewing this article I found a few areas that could be improved.
1. Behavioral classifications, which should be linked to the ethology page, should also include fugichnia (escape behavior). Additionally, the behaviors listed should link to examples of trace fossils exhibiting the behavior.
2. More information should be included in the Ichnofacies section and direct any readers to further explore them by clicking the ichnofacies link.
3. Common ichnofacies should be organized in a more user friendly way. Perhaps in a way that aids in identification for professional and amateur collectors alike. First, the entire section should be subdivided into vertebrate vs invertebrate or divided based on some organism basis rather than alphabetically. I think a table format would be a good way to achieve my ideas for this section. Suggestions for columns include: associated ichnofacies, behavior, possible tracemaker, possible depositional environment, and/or short description such as size, depth of burrow, branching, etc. A table would also easily show any gaps in data.
4. In situ preservation should also be mentioned, and linked, in this article as it is one major reason why trace fossils are so informative.
-BOUDIANA (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Critique: I think the Ichnofacies addition to the article was great! The paragraph is concise, informative, pertinent, and well-corroborated. I see little room for improvement, but I have a couple suggestions. I'm not too sure about its direct relevance to the surrounding content/context of the "Ichnofacies" section, but consider moving it between "Classification" and "Information provided by ichnofossils" - again, not sure how appropriate that is. I might also move or incorporate the last sentence about Seilacher toward the beginning of the paragraph. Osborne147 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Review: I agree that the updates are well done. I was also confused bout the Ichnofacies section. Otherwise, I don't have any additions. Marciaharrison (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)