14c dating would be appropriate for which of the following
My involvement with the initial radiocarbon dating article in the Wikipedia has been until now restricted to the section on measurements and scales, computation of ages and dates, captions to the graphs, and discussion of some of the terminology. If you didn't want to be quite so brief you would use "in": "The date is in..." ...
In my opinion, the other sections still need to be revised. It's correct, but the rewrite makes the question go away. If we use interval of significance then we have to explain what it is. We are expanding the list items of the example, which has already been stated, so sigma is not the subject, but the number 50 in the example is.
These should aid to recast the text in a more parsable version.
I searched Wikimedia high and low for some graphs and could not find any. The references I gave have some great ones but they are not ours. ----- Introduction to the comments on the recently proposed text ----- In particular, concerning the recently proposed additional text, each one of its several statements is here followed by my questions and comments, indented.
--Greasysteve13 , 23 June 2006 (UTC) I believe the question you intended to ask is "Is he correct?
Jclerman , 13 June 2006 (UTC)You said "several links". This is not a program used by many people (for good reason); moreover, if readers want it, they can easily get it by following either the Cal Pal link (which is still there) or the link (which has the advantage of leading them to more widely-used programs). If you want to see them and did not already you can look back in the discussion history. My phrase is of the formula, "the time is hours, minutes and seconds", "the area is square km". But, looking at it again, it seems to me now they are not fair. ----- Text with intercalated comments ----- Professional radiocarbon dates are currently published according to a convention, which is stated in the references given under External links, and is summarized briefly in the following.At that scale the curve looks straight but maybe an expansion is possible. If you imply an operation that can be better explained by an illustration, either include such an illustration or refer to where the reader can see it. Why don't we leave the topic of how up to the laboratory. You are in effect correcting and criticising my paper. So unless the reference is really critical, or an English translation can be found, I think it would be better to change the article to no longer reference it. Daphne A , 13 June 2006 (UTC)The reference you quote is the Proceedings of the Radiocarbon Dating Conference of 1990.You are applying the model to me that was applied to you. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be for the general reader (this is policy). You could make a section in which to list all the conferences, including the Nobel Symposium volume.Jclerman , 13 June 2006 (UTC) "I will now point out the largest flaw of carbon dating, it assumes the rate of decrease in carbon on earth has ALWAYS been constant, which is absolute bogus.Carbon dating can only be trusted for smaller dates, such as a few thousand years, because it is mroe logical to assume that less "stuff" has hapenned in the last 2 thousand years or so." Is he an idiot?Much of the material in the references and/or external links should also be incorporated into the article, especially the contributions of Hessel de Vries (see discussion page) and global warming. Well, if y-axis is above their level then interval of significance surely is. This is not a mechanical tolerance, but a statistical one; that is, measurement took into consideration the variance due to a number of factors, including error, and a standard deviation (STD or σ) was calculated. The "error", in addition to reflecting random variation of sampling, also serves as a fudge factor for them. I'm not going to write you an essay here or try to place one in the article, so I will just end the concept right now. Doing it your way is less precise, so the reader has to ask, "now what sigma is that? A normal (random, Gaussian) distribution is now assumed, which is represented by a bell-shaped curve on a graph of numbers of standard deviations on the x-axis versus probability or frequency on the y-axis. And they would represent the "confidence interval" rather than the "error tolerance". Dave , 30 March 2006 (UTC) "Originally a Carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years was used, which is now known as the Libby half-life. Finkelstein , (UTC) First, this could be stated a little more politely.Also, it is my opinion that the dendrochronological contributions are better discussed in the dendrochronology article. I was trying to tie in to what they already know, not "introduce a new term." Tolerance is a general English word not a special term. Horizontal axis or abscisae is more correct since there is no named x-variable. Not only for the sake of correctness but of internal consistency with the language used in the next sentence. Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life." If these are measurements then we can't say one is more accurate than the other without presuming some value. Also, if this statement is referring to the error bars then a number with an error bar of ±40 is NOT more accurate than a number with a smaller error bar however it is less precise, that is all. I don't know why I thought it was like (half-life)s. Second, it was indeed a cleanup, as stated: a reference that was a link to another article in Wikipedia was moved to the See also section; items that were external links were moved from the References section to the External Links section; a dead external link was removed; unimportant German-language references were removed; and the references were sorted alphabetically. The readability you described as "parsability" is a good idea. overall, your message appears to me to be that the write-up is not user-friendly. They surely helped me to draft papers accessible both to lay readers and specialists. though some degree of rigor is desirable, we do not want rigor mortis. It seems to me this should be written more with the general public in mind.