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.
You can find plenty of discussion about this topic.
Jclerman , 13 June 2006 (UTC) Also, the broken link is now: , 13 June 2006 (UTC) Again, redundant is in your IMHO.
The satisfactory correlation between the ages of the black marks and those of the carbonate deposits validates the use of C to date these two materials in Nerja and other decorated caves.
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.
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.
Not in those who rather than read the article, use it as a tool and go to the references and the external links when they want to calibrate a date.
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).