Talk:Silverpit crater

Silverpit crater is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 13, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
March 7, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 8, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

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

[[Meteoroid#Bolide|bolide]] Anchor Meteoroid#Bolide links to a specific web page: Bolide. The anchor (#Bolide) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

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

"Studies suggest that at the time of the crater's formation, the area was under 50 to 300 m of water." This stops the reader from thinking. Isn't the specific nature of the marine organisms whose shells have formed the sediment what's being used as eviodence here? More information here would give the article added strength and depth. --Wetman 05:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small Miscellaneous Changes

"A thin layer of mobile material beneath a solid crust is easy to understand in the context of icy moons, but is not a common occurrence on the rocky bodies of the solar system."

It might make sense to specify that the rocky bodies referred to occur in the inner solar system by modifying "of the solar system" to read "of the inner solar system."

"Analysis of samples taken directly from the central crater would also assist age determination, but such samples have not yet been taken."

Is there any further information on why they have not been taken? Is it difficult to do for some reason?

Not too difficult - if you have the money (several million dollars) and equipment to drill (and core) a 1.5Km borehole. ...And a licence from the DTI.

I made an earlier correction removing a single letter a from a link title using encyclopaedia. The reason was simple, that was how the destination spelled. Whil(e/st) both spellings are nominally correct(æ even more so for GB) even in Great Britain, generally speaking, a link should respect its destination's usage when possible. Being polite should trump pedantry or linguistic imperialism. I have restored my correction. 24.6.2.72 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craters of Europe

This is the only entry in Category:Craters of Europe - shouldn't it really be in a category like Category:Craters of the United Kingdom or Category:Craters of the North Sea to be consistent with all the other European craters?

Validity of the Crater

Numerous problems stem from the published article itself, the analogy to a Vallhalla-type structure is unwarrented, the crater is far to small in diameter and the authors themselves admitt that "concentric ringed structures of this size were thought impossible", usually 2-3 concentric rings are the norm and only when the impact bolide is calculated to be of a much larger diameter (Vredefort for example has 2-3 rings) but Silverpit has 10. Drill cores from the structure (prior to its "discovery") indicate nothing unusual, impact breccia or signitures of an impact would have stood out. There are also no associated Tsunammi deposits associated with the structure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Climberdave (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a citation from User:Jrockley

User:Jrockley requested a citation for the statement: "Silverpit is named after the Silver Pit fishing grounds in which it is located" [with this edit]. On the face of it, this seems like an unconstructive bit of comedy. User:Jrockley has been asked to explain. --Wetman 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed that one {{fact}}, if it bothered you so much. On A more serious note, this is one of the least well referenced FAs I've ever seen, and I was considering nominating it for a review, but I decided it is actually quite good, just minus all the refs it needs. Instead of attacking me, you wanna have a go at fixing it? — Jack · talk · 10:38, Saturday, 31 March 2007

I have started to improve the referencing, but so far have only done the introduction. Most of the spots that need a reference can be linked to the references already cited elsewhere in the article, just a matter of deciding which one. --Zamphuor 10:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just taken some of the generalised statements out of the article..e.g. "regarded my the majority of scientists as an impact structure" which isn't the case and is certainly not supported by some of the literature discussions. As per referencing the article seems ok, as stated the majority of references are actually in the article and don't need to repeated every other sentence or to qualify individual facts. E.g. the Impact Evidence, it is quite clear that this has come from the Stewart and Allen paper.

I've added some other references in however something seems to have gone wrong down the bottom and I can't figure out what, any help with that would be appreciated. ClimberDave 11:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick fix. There was an extra "ref" in front of the "ref name" tag at the start of a couple of them. --Zamphuor 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that ClimberDave 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has all the references it needs. A sentence does not need a little number at the end to be verifiable. I think we can credit readers with the intelligence to read the references without them being pointed to in every single sentence. It is transparently ridiculous to demand a citation for saying that a rocky body a hundred metres across will cause a tsunami if it hits the ocean. 81.178.210.255 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring pre-8th Aug lead section

On 8-Aug-07 anon editor 81.178.210.255 pasted back an old version of the lead section and stuffed-up all the inline referencing in the process. Apparently, by citing the age estimates from the latest papers, the article had started to move away from this editors favourite theory of silverpit being part of a multiple K-T impact, and (see above) the article had become too well referenced. Thankfully others have repaired the referencing. I'm restoring the pre-8th Aug lead section, and made sure the references still work. --Zamphuor 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text inconsistency

There's an inconsistency in the text of the first paragraph of the 'Discovery' section:

The discovery of the crater and the impact hypothesis were reported in the journal Nature in 2002.[1] proposed, raising doubts as to Silverpits categorization as an impact structure.[4]

There seems to be part of a sentence missing. Anchoress (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof?

Could we put into the article a clear/clearer statement of exactly what would constitute proof that this is an impact crater- textites, breccia, whatever? What would the evidence of Tsunamis consist of? It would be good to establish this through consensus before any such evidence is produced.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel missing!

Trying to find why the article is still in the Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases, despite nothing to complain about found in the article. Could be some badly authored wikipedia template... Said: Rursus ☻ 11:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel had digged into the template {{who}}. Everything was all right: {{who}} is a template for too vague references, such as "current research claim that" "people say that", "my uncle Jim have read in a paper in his bath room, that". I simply exchanged {{who}} for the better suited {{fact}} for this case. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing picture links

The two links for further pictures of the crater are now missing. Gary Thomas 11 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Thomas (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doggerland

There are lots of mentions in the text of an impact on water but surely the meteorite (if it was one) would have hit dry land as Doggerland was above sea level at the time. According to the Wiki page, ^[1] Doggerland was flooded about 6,500–6,200 BCE and the impact, as proposed, occured millions of years ago. 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Clive Dakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.180.133 (talk)

References

^ Doggerland

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Silverpit crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silverpit crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209114719/http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FB25591.1 to http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FB25591.1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doggerland

[1]