Talk:Oblique subduction

Comments from Graeme

Hi LklAndy

in File:Combined subduction gif.gif I would suggest that the arrows in legend match the direction in the diagram. I was confused to start with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, File:ED1 updated.jpg should not be in .jpg format. .jps shows compression artifacts on the screen. I would suggest .svg format, as it is easily edited for what ever reason, say to fix the misspelling foreacr (forearc?). If you cannot do that, try .png format, as it is good for solid text and lines and won't compress it so that lines look dusty.

Also for File:Slab rollback2.png which is in the good .png format (yay!) the writing is too small to read in the thumbnail. Please make the text bigger!

You mention "LOFZ", but readers like me don't know what that means: FZ=fault zone? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jasmine

I like how you pair the visual devices with every paragraph explaining the process/mechanisms. The visuals are nicely illustrated and quite readable. I can understand the gist of it just by looking at them. The outline of the page is beautifully organised.

More detailed annotation can be done on the evolutionary diagrams. For example, in the "Evolution of oblique subduction" the descriptions below don't quite match the diagrams themselves. There can also be a legend explaining the colours you used ie. blue- subducting oceanic crust; grey- continental crust. And you can also pinpoint the "dip angles" changes in the diagram. The rotation and retreating part can also be labelled in the diagram to achieve a better consistency between the description and the diagram itself. This would be better for layman to follow.

Comments from Yuki

Your page is really comprehensive. It would be a good place to start if I'm going into more details of this particular topic.

In terms of organization, I think you have done a pretty good job since I can grasp what this page is about just by looking at the contents. I think each section is in appropriate length, i.e. informative enough while not lose readers' interests. For some of the latter parts, some of the graphs are placed in a relatively messy manner, but I think that's kind of difficult to deal with since you have quite a lot of illustrations.

For the introduction, I think it serves its function very well and I can understand the basic idea of this topic very easily just by reading your introduction.

I don't have much to comment on the language. I think its generally easy to follow.

For the illustrations, I think they are well-drawn and can bring out the main idea in a clear manner. I do think you can add some more annotations to show what is subduction obliquity angle and the forces created during collision in the first diagram in the introduction. It might help to communicate ideas easily for people who don't know much about geology.

For the science, the key concepts are communicated in a comprehensive manner and I don't think I have much to comment in this area.

For the references, I think you can add "Adopted from ..." for some of the illustrations since I only see you adding this to some of the diagrams. I don't see any other major problems.

Wongtszyanyuki (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Keith

The concepts are easy to understand, and the extensive usage of figures helps the page a lot. The page is supported by sufficient reference materials and present many useful models. I think you can include scales in the figures, as we cannot understand whether it is a regional scale or small scale features. The structure of the ‘Deformational features’ part is a bit confusing. 4.1 ‘Forearc silvers’ is a feature but 4.4 is ‘Hypothetical models for slip deficit’ which seems a bit weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TseKiChun (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Lawrence

There is a little minor thing making me confused. When I see the content page of your page, I saw part 3 is 'Development of oblique subduction'. But below it, it only show 3.1.1,3.1.2 and 3.1.3 related to those tectonic events. I think better solution is that tectonic events should belongs to part 4, then 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Ummmmm..... other thing is that I think your structure is difficult for readers to follow since I saw that some of the subtitles were shifted towards the left, but the contents were still at the right. I have a question that I still don't know how the curved strike slip fault formed. What does it mean shear stress distribution in subduction zone making it bend?