Talk:Décollement

Review of page by Michael Stevens

Taylor, Are decollements always faults? I think your first image need some work, would the green layer not be parallel to the surface as you have shown, or is there some preferential erosion to the right of the image? The layers folding could have been drawn more ideally, and precisely. This is kind of all for the overall image, your purpose of showing the detachment is well done. Second sentence in the formation section needs rephrasing. Future, add images for the four types of detachments. I like the progression of your second image, maybe add a description with the image because you have to go to the image page to be able to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstev18 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Marielle

As previously noted there are some grammar issues. Your third sentence in the introduction could also use some work. Some of the sentences have flow issues. Your first image definitely needs more explantation for what the different units are and their purpose. Explaining that the starts indicate basement rock or the green layer shows motion along the faults. Did you modify this image from a paper or is it completely original? If it is modified you need to give credit to the author in the caption. In terms of organization you state in your into that decollements can be formed in a number of different ways but then in your next heading you discuss origin. Maybe change this around so you talk about what your introducing in the correct place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mausbu1 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Mausbu1 (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-live wiki review for class by Erin

You have a lot of good information here, but there are still grammatical and spelling errors. Read it slowly out loud and you'll catch them (if you haven't hand-updated your copy of Word/OO's dictionary to include geologic terms). Also, eliminate "weasel words" like 'typically', 'usually', etc. The article is a bit sparse with wikilinks, but this is minor. Your figure can still use some work (maybe some internal stratigraphy). Something I expected to see: basal thrust. Discuss it and get a re-direct? Ewalde1 (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A related comment is that redlinks are OK if the term is spelled correctly. They are a hint for someone to create it, either a redirect or an article. In the current state of Wikipedia I would expect to see some red links in articles about plate tectonics. Not everything has been written yet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foreland

"emerge deep in the foreland": the link is to a page about some particular location ("the easternmost point of the Isle of Wight"). I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but I don't know what the intended link is. Later on in the article is a link to "foreland basins," which look correct (at a guess, I'm not a geologist). Perhaps "foreland" = "foreland basin", but I'm too unsure to make a change. Mcswell (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piped the first to foreland basin as the Isle of Wight location is irrelevant here. Vsmith (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Décollement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916071551/http://www.unifr.ch/geoscience/geology/research_sites/Mosar_Research/PDFfiles/alps-presentfuture.pdf to https://www.unifr.ch/geoscience/geology/research_sites/Mosar_Research/PDFfiles/alps-presentfuture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]