Talk:Geology of Myanmar

Review from Graeme Bartlett

In the Geological History (Tectonics and Stratigraphy) section it sounds as if you are providing some WP:Original research. On Wikipedia we only report what others have published and do not put our own new proposals into articles. I am hoping that " literature reference" means that there are supporting references available. If they exist can you please add on the foot notes to each paragraph so that readers can see where the facts came from?

The image File:Myanmar.JPG seems to be copied from a text book. This can only be done if permission is given for the free use of the image. Usually this is not given. So it means that you should make your own diagram or table instead. When you do so you could include pre-Cretaceous rocks too.

Are there any schools, organisations or publications devoted to Geology in Burma (now or in the past)? Has the place been geologically mapped? Is there any information about disasters caused by geology - earthquake, landslide, subsistence, mineral poisoning, tsunami risk?

Is there any geophysical information available? (gravity anomalies, magnetic rocks affecting field, crustal thickness, rate of heat flow, movement? Can you write about ground water or soil? (it appears in the Friedrich Bender book).

When you get the time, please convert your dot points into sentences!

PS you can look at some of my articles like Geology of Taiwan, Geology of the Iberian Peninsula or Geology of Tasmania to see what I thought of the scope for this kind of article.

PSS I have merged your repeated references. If you like, you can give the references a more meaningful name than "auto". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

review from youknowwhoiwillbe

Re the presentation style, keep it like a popular scientific article instead of a research paper. It can be improved by changing your citing style... maybe hide those authors and years published and only show them under reference.

I guess instead of talking about the tectonics in each period, I recommend that putting them in a collective era is better, unless theres a significant event happened and in the case you can specifically bring out that period. Otherwise mentioning the similar things in different periods is a bit repetitive. and I guess after you complete your final draft, your style will make the page overwhelmingly long.

And references, you might need to quote several references in one topic (cross referencing) instead of depend on one single research paper to complete an entire part. Youknowwhoiwillbe (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from dinohk

1. Consider adding biostratigraphic information about the region. What kind of fossils are present? What was the paleoenvironment like?

2. next to your subsections where you are listing geological periods you should include the actual age, for example: Cretaceous (145-66 million years ago), or add a geological timescale as reference.

3. A couple of pictures or diagrams you added don't appear to be showing properly. I would also suggest adding some real life photos of the region showing some interesting geology or just the region in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Review from Jupiter

Hi Eunicecyl.

Your page gives a very detailed description in the Geology of Myanmar (Burma) with clear structure. Although some part is not completed, it seems to be a very informative and detailed and I am looking forward to it. The figure showing the location of Myanmar is a good way to introduce the area. And the structure is very clear by separating the tectonic setting, regional features and lithology in the "overview" section. Apart from the geology overview and geological history, you have also included some geological related sections ("Geological Resources" and "Controversial Topics"). Although these sections may make your page very lengthy, I think these sections can provide useful and interesting information/topic to readers.

Here are some suggestion:

1. In section "Overview", your figure depicts the tectonic setting of Myanmar looks like a map with continent and ocean (in blue). You may add a north arrow, scale bar and legend to make it more completed. You may also label the ocean as well, as the readers may not understand the geographical representation.

2. I know your stratigraphic graph and the image of the three divided terrain are deleted due to copyright problem. It is good to include the diagrams showing the stratigraphy and terrain. You may want to draw your own diagrams based on a reference and cite the source properly. Please feel free to let me know if you have any question/ if you want me to take a look at your new diagrams.

3. You may add some links to the corresponding wiki page in your text afterwards.

4. It may be more clear to state the years with the geological period subsections, as the readers may not be familiar with geological time scale.

5. You have include many examples of different formations in the geological history part (such as Thitsipin Limestone at the southern Shan State) and different minerals in the "Geological Resources" section. Real pictures of the outcrop/area and minerals may make your page more lively and informative.

In short, your page is very informative and detailed. Good use of diagrams and picture will make it better. Links in the text/subsection is also essential for a good wiki page. Jupmira104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Review from YCYBenjamin

Well done! Just a few points of suggestions:

1. Try to explain and add some internal links on special terms like Sunda plate, terrane, strike slip fault and fore-arc

2. Seems some citations are missing starting from 'Archean and Proterozoic eons' and try to avoid using in-text citation. This make it doesn't look like a wikipedia page.

3. You may add some cross-section diagrams to show the tectonic setting for simple illustration, like convergent collisional plate boundary, (but maybe an oblique convergence will be too difficult(?) )

4. The areas and sections you covered may be too many for a wikipedia page while detailed information for specific field is more important. Perhaps you can try to eliminate some parts, like geological resources and controversial topics.

Good luck for your later drafts :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YCYBenjamin (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Patrick

Hi Eunicecyl, Your page on Myanmar geology is great. I like the presentation of your page: first mention the observation made thus far and then go to interpretation in later chapters. The first sentence clearly marks the scope of the study and the enclosed picture effectively gives a synoptic view. Here are some suggestions:

1. More images could be included to aid your explanation, for instance an evolutionary diagram depicting the plate motion
2. Since this is a regional geology consisting of 4 plates in essence, I would prefer to summarize the observations of the lithology and present it in a schematic geological map to with formation names to show the spatial distribution of the types of rock and structure to help readers understand
3. You may consider constructing a table instead of sentences in the geological history part since some periods have insignificant tectonic implication but merely sedimentation
4. The mining part I believe could be so demanding to finish all, I would suggest to list out some major mines while explaining one or two in detail, how they relate to the tectonic history etc.

Cheers, Patrick Wcpatrick6572 (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Review from Tamjwh

Hi Eunicecyl,

The structure of your page is well-organized, and it consists of detailed information that a reader would be interested to know about the geology of Myanmar. And here are a few suggestions:

• I like the figures that you have made showing the fault systems in the Myanmar. The figures are clear to geology students, but some symbols may be too technical to the general public, e.g. thrust faults, spreading center etc. The presentation of the figures would be better if a legend of the symbols is added next to the diagram, or arrows showing the directions of the tectonic systems would also be good.
• The geological evolution diagram of Myanmar can be improved. In the paragraphs the geological evolution from Paleozoic to Cenozoic Era were described, but in the figure only Jurassic to Early Miocene were shown. It would be better if the figure includes all the major tectonic events you described in the section. Also, improvement can be made in the evolution figure. For instance, (a) and (b) are very different geological locations, you may describe how (a) evolve to (b) in the figure.
• You may also consider constructing a table to summarize the major events in the geological evolution of Myanmar.

Tamjwh (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from kakitc

Hi Eunicecyl,

Your page is well-structured and contains most the information about the geology of Myanmar. The following are some suggestions:

• For the second figure (the one showing the regional geology feature), it can be enlarged. It is a little bit hard to read some of the words like the MMB now. Moreover, the territory of Myanmar can be added because readers who do not familiar with Myanmar may forget which part is Myanmar. From the text, it suggested there are three regions in Myanmar, I think it is better to shade the region with semi-transparent colors. Apart from that, I think you can switch the sequence between the Shan Plateau and the MMB in the text, so that the sequence will be from west to east.

• I think you can add a simplified geological map to show the distribution of different lithology.

• In the section about the fault system, there is a block diagram, what is the brown color at the Sagaing fault stands for? Why it is only shown in the cross-sectional side of the diagram? Moreover, the bracket showing the Central belt is slightly misleading that it sugggests the diagram is showing the whole Central belt and the Sagaing fault is located on the western side. You can remove the left portion of the bracket or change the annotation to eastern Myanmar Central belt.

Kakitc (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Jupiter 20171121

Your page give a good introduction on geology of Myanmar with images in map view and cross sections. For the simplified diagram showing the tectonic deformation along Shan Plateau and the Sagaing fault, you may want to make it larger as the words on legend is difficult to read.

Feedback from Wlamwk

Hi Eunicecyl:

1. The diagrams included are very useful and easy to understand. It would be even better if you could include a simplified geological map to summarize the surface geology of Myanmar as well.

2. In the second figure showing the regional features in Myanmar, you may want to use another colour to show the words “MMB” and “Shan Scarp” as yellow is a bit difficult to read.

3. If possible, you may also consider adding some important outcrops or overview photos e.g. Indo-Burman Range which would help readers visualize the described geology.

Wlamwk (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from Dinohk

Consider using a more zoomed out map image showing the location of Myanmar. Your image is a bit zoomed in and hard to tell where it is in the world. I see that there is a smaller map image within that image that shows where Myanmar is in relation to the rest of Asia but it is extremely small even if you open up the original image.

Some biostratigraphic information could be of interest, maybe talk about some notable fossils found in Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits by ♥Golf

I barged in like a bull in a china shop and completed a bunch of minor edits on your article, Geology of Myanmar. Congratulations on writing a fine article in your first attempt! I tip my hat to you and wish you much success in what I know will be a wonderful and lucrative career in geology.

♥Golf (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)