 |
| Bedding plane of Ediacara animals (ca. 550 million-years-old) at Mistaken Point, Newfoundland. The animals died during a volcanic eruption and were buried and preserved beneath volcanic ash (see grey veneer on surface). |
 |
| The shattered appearance of the carbonate below the pillow basalt suggests the rapid generation of steam when the volcanics flowed over unconsolidated carbonate sediments. |
U/Pb zircon age constraints for the rift-related volcanic flows suggest initial emplacement around 571 million years ago. Application of the Catoctin age to the Fauquier succession constrains the Fauquier ice age to be about 10 million years younger than the 582 Ma Gaskiers event, supporting the view of multiple Ediacaran Period glaciations. Furthermore, the age constraint from eastern Laurentia falls within radiometric uncertainty of fossiliferous strata in Avalonia, indicating that the Fauquier glaciation was coincident with early metazoan evolution.
A paper related to this study can be found at http://www.geol.umd.edu/%7Ekaufman/pdf/Hebert10_PCResearch.pdf
To reach a general audience, this article would be well-served by links placed under key concepts pointing to Wikipedia or other explanatory sites. This would improve the experience for readers not oriented to the subject without distracting from the material.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that this site is basically in DC's backyard, and something like a narrative of how the site was discovered could help capture the attention of readers. Cool images help.
The captions are clear and easy to understand and the pictures really grab your attention. However, the main text contains a lot of jargon that many lay people might not understand (e.g. metazoans, radiometric constraints, etc.). These terms should either be avoided (use 'animal' instead of 'metazoan') or they should be defined in the text (I like Sara's idea of linking it to Wikipedia).
ReplyDeleteOther than that I think this is a great introduction to Craig's paper.
I agree with the above comments. Some terminology is more accurate than it is understandable. Accuracy and understandability could go hand in hand if a sentence or phrase explaining the terms were added. This seems like it would be an easy addition that would help the public to grasp the ideas in the paper without suffering jargon overload. Were this to be written for a news article, rather than a science blog, it would probably be useful to explain metazoans, diamictite, fluidization of carbonates, hyaloclastic texture, rift-related volcanism, and radiometry in more simple terms.
ReplyDeleteI think the article achieved its objective overall. If the audience is comprised mainly of scientists with the odd scientific journalist thrown in, it hit the nail on the head. I quite like the summary, especially the figures. For my personal purposes, I found the text clear and easy to understand.
I am a little confuing about age information in the figure 2 (ca. 550 million-years-old), should it be ~570 or 580Ma? This text first discuss the age constraints of carbonate sequence at Newfoundland , then a new study evaluated this statement at some formation, VA. So, it should be consistent to follow that we continute to correlate this age to other carbonate sequence in other basin?
ReplyDeleteOVerall, I like the picture.
There are enough details present to pique the reader's interest and give a background on what the linked paper is about. I agree with the other reviewers comments on the language. At times, it is a bit too complex for someone outside of the field (although I think you may have since updated the original post?).
ReplyDeleteThe explanation of the timing of events is also confusing at points, with the 550 mya age in the figure but the dated flow at 571 mya. How was the 550 age obtained?
The photo's bring the story to life and break up the text, while also explaining what Ediacaran metazoans are. Overall I enjoyed the post and found it understandable.
Overall, the text appears to provide a clear and concise summary of the important results and interpretations contained in the referenced paper. It is clear to me why this paper is important. The photographs also compliment the text well.
ReplyDeleteA couple of minor points/critiques:
Much of the language used is very specialized and would probably only be understood by those having a background in geoscience. This is appropriate for this audience, but not a more general one (as others have pointed out). If you wanted to reach a more general audience, I also think spelling out some of the key concepts in this study would help (e.g., the relation between cap carbonates and climate, which is central to your interpretation).
I would also suggest using one word to describe the early animals, instead of using two terms interchangeably ("animals" and "complex metazoans"). That way, confusion will be avoided for readers unfamiliar with the term "metazoan".
This is an interesting post and it is accessible to a scientific audience. I agree with the others, however; much of the language is above a general audience's head. I think the point comes across anyway, but it is bogged down slightly by the jargon and the technical names for things (like formation names and the Gaskier's event, in addition to what others have said). Giving age ranges for the formations would be helpful to people who are not familiar with the stratigraphy. And calling it the Gaskier's glaciation would be an easy fix.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that would help with confusion about what metazoans are is a scale on the photo. A general audience may be able to figure out that they are animals, but having the context of their size and complexity (or even showing a conceptual drawing or an analogous modern organism) would help not only their understanding of the post, but also why the study is interesting and important. Sara's idea of linking to wikipedia would also accomplish this.
Great power washing photo! The content is clear and the photos add to the text considerably. Considering the medium of the blog, I think a schematic picture with a time-scale would be necessary to appeal to an audience with more general knowledge of the subject. Pictures catch the eye first, and should tell the story while the text enhances the story. Having a link for further information/reading is essential and well placed at the end.
ReplyDeleteIs there a scale in the middle photo? If there is I can't find it and if there is not, how big are these bugs? Coin size or Volkswagen sized?
I think that the summary was straight-forward and to the point. Also, the pictures illustrate the text well. However, I agree that some of the terminology would be beyond a general reader's ability to understand. For a scientific audience, it would be fine. I think Sara's idea about linking terms to Wikipedia would be a great way to utilize one of the advantages of online blogging.
ReplyDeleteAn illustration of the morphology of the complex metazoans would be helpful for a general audience. Also, a map showing the study area might be nice to see.
It is definitely an interesting post. The results and interpretation are clear and concise.
I found it a little difficult to follow along with this posted summary for multiple reasons. First, as others have already pointed out, the jargon is difficult to keep up with. There are many terms which a general audience would not understand. Even for those working within the field of geology, there are many terms that require some explanation or background information for anyone who is not specializing within this area.
ReplyDeleteNext, I became confused about the purpose of the research. The second sentence implies that the research presented here evaluates the claim of the first sentence: Radiometric dating narrows the period in between ice ages and evolution of metazoans to several million years. This statement sounds like it applies very generally to all ice ages. Later discussion, though, provides that the relevance of constraining ice ages is in “supporting the view of multiple Ediacaran Period glaciations”. I find this confusing. There is no mention prior to this statement of an alternative view to the occurrence of “multiple Ediacaran Period glaciations”. No approximation of the number of glaciations during the Ediacaran is ever mentioned. Earlier statements mention narrowing the gap between ice ages, but without knowing what the original estimated gap was and how that duration compares to the length of the Ediacaran period, the later statement seems to come out of nowhere (unless you are more familiar with this research). The first statement only mentions an ice age deposit in Newfoundland was of mid-Ediacaran age, but makes no implications of single versus multiple glaciations during that one period. It might be helpful to provide a bit more detailed background for the reader.
Also, the mention of the Gaskiers event within the last few sentences provides another source for confusion. What is the Gaskiers event? Is this to what the first sentence is referring? The first sentence does not name the deposit in Newfoundland (volcanic ash/ice age deposit). Is this deposit linked to the Gaskiers event? And where does this deposit fall (temporally) relative to the Fauquier and Catoctin in Virginia? The post states that the overlying Catoctin Formation age constrains the Fauquier age to be younger than the Gaskiers event… Without knowing what the Gaskiers event is and how it correlates to the formations, it is difficult to organize the events in a timeline. I know that this is a summary, and details must be kept to a minimum. However, brief introductions would help link the formations to the events more clearly. We encounter this same issue in the very last sentence as well, when there is mention of an age constraint from eastern Laurentia and fossiliferous strata from Avalonia. This is supposed to link Fauquier glaciation with early metazoan evolution. How they are linked is unclear without knowing the relationship between Laurentia, Avalonia, and Fauquier.
Finally, some of the parenthesized additions interrupt the flow of the summary. This seems trivial, but in an already complex summary, this only aids in distracting the reader. Mid sentence the reader must transition to an entirely new thought before completing the first thought. Short additions aid in clarifying a sentence, but longer ones should be stated separately to avoid confusion. If a comment is important enough to write a whole new idea mid-sentence, then it is important enough to have a sentence all to itself rather than disturbing the summary’s flow.
I do like the pictures shown here as they help with parts of the storyline. More detail would just make conceptualization of the research easier and more efficient.
I agree with the earlier posts that some of the terminology would confuse a more general audience. The post does, however, give a good short summary of the paper attached. The pictures work good to grab the attention. Perhaps giving some information on the fossils and how this affects the biological and evolutionary sciences would help this post reach the attention of scientists from various fields.
ReplyDeleteI find the article easy to follow, although some terminology may confuse readers with a non-geological background as mentioned in previous posts. I like the rather short and concise description of the goals and results of the presented study, which focuses the basic facts.
ReplyDeleteThe images support the text very well and give the reader a first impression of the object of investigation. Particularly the picture with the fossils is eye-catching and sparks the reader's interest in the article, although a scale is missing as mentioned in some earlier comments. However, I would not choose a higher font size for the figure captions than for the text, because I think the captions should not dominate the text.
When I first read this blog 2 weeks ago, I thought it sounded pretty good, although there were some words that were unclear to me (as the other posts have mentioned). Having just read through it again with the mindset of a more general audience, I don’t think that this blog would attract many people. I think the main point of science blogs is to quickly grab someone’s attention and then in a few short words explain the work so that it’s clear and to the point. I also think that science writing for the public needs a clear take home message that can be somewhat related to people’s current understanding of the world around us and I’m not sure this blog does that.
ReplyDeleteI think this blog is weak from the get-go, first and foremost because of the title. I would have wanted the title to emphasize more of the significance of the study, but also be straightforward enough to draw people in. Something more along the lines of, “Narrowing the time gap between recent ice ages and animal evolution”. I don’t think many people would have a sense of when the Ediacaran was relative to now, so it may have been more appropriate to just put the actual age in the title.
Like everyone said, this is a very jargon heavy blog. I assure you not much will come to people’s minds when they read about/think of a glacial diamictite. I think the transition between ideas is poor, such as the relation to the Gaskiers event (really? no general audience will know what that is either) and the mentioning of Laurentia (most people know Pangaea and that’s about it). It just reads very choppy and disconnected. The images and caption are okay and provide clearer information than the blog text. A scale bar is needed for the first image.
I think another major downfall of this blog is its readability. I had to read through this blog several times to understand it (and not just because I had to critique it). Out of curiosity, I performed a Spache Readability Test on the blog text to confirm that this blog was too difficult for a general audience. First off, there are only 5 sentences, which seems okay at first, but then another count shows that there’s a whopping average of 37.5 words per sentence. That’s too many! People will have to re-read each sentence a few times to really grasp what’s being said. The result of the test gives a rating of about 9.7 and I believe newspapers typically aim for the 3-5 range. Unfortunately, I think I have to rate this blog low. It’s good science, but poorly communicated.