Talk:Dharwar Craton

Comments from Yuki

Hi Lawrence

I think your page is quite comprehensive.

I think the introduction serves its function well and I can quickly grasp what the page is talking about just by reading the introduction.

For organization, I think it is well-organized and the tables are effective in helping the readers to sort out the information they need. However, for the part of "Formation and Evolution", I think you can add some indicator to indicates which step it is in for each sub-headings, such as "Stage 1: ...".

For the visuals, I think they really summarized the formation process really well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongtszyanyuki (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Triton

Hi Lawrence

You have illustrated the main concepts clearly.

However, I think your organization has rooms for improvement. Sections "Archean crust accretions" and "Crustal reworking events" are better placed under "Formation and evolution". Also, you should tell people the implications of the "Metamorphic record(s)".

I like the tables in the article though, they are very organized. But there could be more in the overview part to compare the groups within the craton. The diagrams are effective, but "lithosphere" should be clarified as "lithospheric mantle"; while slab rollback should be annotated.

There are some but not serious grammatical errors e.g. plural form of "plateau" should be "plateaux"; "large scale bimodal greenstone" should be written as "large-scale bimodal greenstone".Triton Chiu63 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Rachel

Hi Lawrence,

I think your article is very organised and you make good use of tables. For the location map of Dharwar Craton, I think you may label the map to make it clearer. For Intraplate hotspot model, you may explain it a bit more.

Rachel:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhunggg (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the oldest part of India is the Dharwar Craton? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Luidia maculata
• Comment: part of Educational Assignment for Regional Geology at University of Hong Kong

5x expanded by Skhlaw (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 22:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

Please provide a quote from the source as the hook is too hard to verify otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The source for the sentence "which is located in southern India and considered as the oldest part of the Indian peninsula." doesn't say such a thing. The hook itself is different from what the article says because the Indian subcontinent is different from India. Why are there no links to the references that are online and have at least an abstract available to non-subscribers? A Google search for all of the reference titles reveals links to the articles. The article does not qualify as being expanded 5x. It was moved to main space from a sandbox on November 12. It was then moved back to a sandbox on November 16. It was then moved back to article space on November 29. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, although I might be missing something—It looks like any kind of 5x expansion would have began in September, which is far too long ago. Sandbox reincubation wouldn't count as a mainspace move unless the article was TNTed, which I'm not seeing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I will allow the issues to be fixed per IAR as mentioned by BlueMoonset on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So the issue is with the hook, However I am struggling to come up with alternative hooks that are interesting and not too technical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett It is. The links to online abstracts is just something that would be nice. We could ask for assistance on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How about alt1: ... that the oldest rocks of the Dharwar Craton are tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite gneisses and greenstone belts between 3 and 3.4 billion years old? reference from https://doi.org/10.1016 full text here: [2] page 4 line 27 to 32 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My only issue is that the article says "2.7 Ga greenstone belts" and I think that translates to 2.7 billion years. The rest checks out. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ga is short for gigaannum, which means billion years. Does this need further explanation in the article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Your hook "says greenstone belts between 3 and 3.4 billion years old?" I see one mention of greenstone belts in the article and it says "2.7 Ga greenstone belts". SL93 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

well it is from the lede, 3rd paragraph: "The western Dharwar Craton contains the oldest basement rocks, with greenstone sequences between 3.0-3.4 Ga,".

Graeme Bartlett But will an average reader know that greenstone belts are the same as greenstone sequences? SL93 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

How about matching the text closer then with alt1a: ... that the oldest rocks of the Dharwar Craton are tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite gneisses and greenstone sequences between 3 and 3.4 billion years old?

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Approved. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT1a to Prep 7 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)