Template:Did you know nominations/Mineral evolution

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Mineral evolution

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that minerals have evolved, with over two thirds of Earth's mineral species owing their existence to life? Source: "Indeed, we argue that fully two-thirds of all known mineral species are the consequence of Earth’s transformation by living organisms."
  • ALT1:... that mineral evolution has increased the number of mineral species on Earth from about 250 to over 5400? Source: Table 1 in Hazen, R. M.; Ferry, J. M. (22 February 2010). "Mineral Evolution: Mineralogy in the Fourth Dimension". Elements. 6 (1): 9–12, and "the list includes selected information on the 5413 currently valid species" (Pasero, Marco; et al. (November 2018). "The New IMA List of Minerals – A Work in Progress – Updated: November 2018".)
  • ALT2:... that mineral species on Earth have increased in complexity and diversity, with over two thirds owing their existence to life? Source: 'At the most basic level, evolution is simply defined as “change over time,” and in this respect there can be no question that mineral evolution has occurred. However, we suggest that mineral evolution implies something more, as it arises in part from a sequence of deterministic, irreversible processes that lead from the mineralogical parsimony of the pre-solar era to progressively more diverse and complex phase assemblages.'
  • ALT3:... that according to the theory of mineral evolution, the number of mineral species on Earth has increased from about 250 to over 5400?

• Reviewed: Plasma Instrument for Magnetic Sounding

Improved to Good Article status by RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk). Self-nominated at 22:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC).

• @RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): I'm approving ALT0, which I think is more interesting and attention-grabbing than ALT1. I changed "2/3" to "two-thirds" per MOS:FRAC (in both the hook and the article), but otherwise it's an excellent hook. The fact appears twice in the article body, cited both times, and once in the lead. The simplified paraphrase of the fact used in the hook is appropriate. The hook as a standalone sentence somewhat conflates mineral and biological evolution, but I think this is a feature and not a bug because it triggers a sense of curiosity that should inspire people to click through. It's easy to imagine a reader asking themselves "wait, what does it mean that minerals have 'evolved', especially if it involves life?" Besides, the wording strikes me as fundamentally accurate (i.e. there is no distortion/inaccuracy in the paraphrasing/simplifying), the simplified hook is appropriate for a main-page general audience (anything more complicated and technically clear would make it less apt for a general audience), and the distinction between the two "evolutions"—and the exact nature of their overlap—are both clearly defined once the reader clicks through into the article itself. Otherwise: the article is new enough (promoted to GA status on Feb. 7); long enough; within policy on all relevant points; and QPQ has been satisfied.

Well done! This is an interesting topic and well-written article. The prose is really lucid and approachable for a general audience, even while delving into sophisticated and complex ideas (I say this as a member of the "general audience" myself, as someone with virtually no scientific literacy beyond undergrad GE classes). It's clearly a valuable contribution to Wikipedia as a GA on a fairly "new" concept, given that the term was only introduced in '08.

As an aside: I can see that you're a geophysicist in academia; I don't know if you have any interest in (contemporary) philosophy, but if you do (or are interested in some interdisciplinary perspective) I would highly recommend Jane Bennett's Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (2010), which argues that forms of non-living matter usually considered to be "inert" actually have some degree of agency. I first became aware of the concept of "mineral evolution", especially the mediation of mineral evolution through biological evolution, through reading that book. Her perspective—or at least, a summary of her perspective based on my best recollection—is that minerals and (the non-mineral components of) organisms could be seen as co-participants, that processes of mineral evolution were not just "mediated" passively through the actions of living organisms because minerals have also acted on (and through) lifeforms. She discusses mineral evolution (although without using that exact term) on pp. 10–11, and it looks like a copy of the book in pdf is available online at a .edu if you google it. —BLZ · talk 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@BLZ: Sorry for taking so long to reply - somehow I missed this communication. Thank you for your kind words about this article. I do have a little interest in philosophy, and that book sounds intriguing. Thank you for the suggestion. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Returned from prep. On the face of it, the hook that was promoted (ALT0) doesn't make sense to the casual reader. It sounds like you're anthropomorphizing "life" or something. It really doesn't make sense. An additional comment was received at WT:DYK that this should be noted as a hypothesis. Yoninah (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: The original idea was that the hook would catch the attention of readers, inspiring them to read the article and find out what is meant by evolution in this context. I have added another hook that makes the meaning explicit. As for it being a hypothesis, I have called it that for lack of a better word. It's more of a label to organize facts that are well established such as the enormous increase in mineral species, particularly after the appearance of life. So I'm not sure if it is necessary to call it a hypothesis in the hook. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The new hooks do nothing to clarify, do they? The lead of the article itself has since been changed to say "hypothesis." -SusanLesch (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Did you read all of my reply? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Of course. Without prejudice, I remove myself from this thread. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry if that sounded snippy. It's just that I'm not sure what more I could say. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Minerals probably do not have sentience but the idea that they evolved has merit, so I support this too. Likewise, my apologies. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• RockMagnetist, thank you for the new alt. But you're still using that expression "owing their existence to life", which makes no sense. Readers (like me) are not going to wonder what mineral evolution is when the hook ends on such a strange note. I'm wondering if we could just go with ALT1, but add "the theory of mineral evolution..." or "the hypothesis of mineral evolution..." in front of the bolded link. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think it does make sense, but never mind. How about ALT3? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, ALT3 satisfies all the comments received to date. ALT3 hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per BLZ. ALT3 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)