Jump to content

Talk:Geology of the Kimberley (Western Australia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some recommendations

[edit]

1. Add a link to 'protolith' mentioned in Western Zone

2. More explanations on the word 'ensialic' may be needed, or just replace it with simpler terms.

3. It may be better to label the directions of the thrust faults in the post-hooper orogeny and halls creek orogney figures.

Hope this will help. Thanks. 183.179.56.47 (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for improvement

[edit]

1. The Western, Central and Eastern Zone should be under the Hooper and Lamboo Complexes part instead of having the same title size. It is also suggested that exchange the position of the ‘Zone’ and ‘Age’ columns because there is no ordering found in the ‘Age’ column but in the ‘Zone’ column.

2. For the ‘Orogeny’ column in the summary table, the orogeny event should be more specific, so readers can relate to the event elaborated in the next section ‘Tectonic Evolution. For example, Hooper Orogeny (1865 - 1850 Ma) should be changed into Early to Later Hooper Orogeny (1865 - 1850 Ma).

3. Would be great if some description of each major unit could be added. In the Tectonic Evolution part, in some years without orogeny happened, what has happened during the missing years such as 1845 - 1835 Ma. Is there deposition, erosion or any other things happened?

4. Referencing problem such as missing dates.

5. Grammar problems such as ‘diagram not drawn to scale.

Hope the above recommendations help! :) 

Mikocheung (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victor

[edit]

Hi! I am Victor.

1. For the "economic geology" part, if you don't have time to finish it, just delete it.

2. For the illustration parts, I think you can add some images of the real geology in Kimberley if you can find some in wiki commons so that the audience can have better understanding.

3. For the "Late Hooper Orogeny" diagram, there are some orange intrusions. Can you label them? VictorSo1031 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations from Mohammad

[edit]

1. Names in the first figure are small

2. The location of the Lambao complex in the second image is a bit confusing

3. Is it possible to separate these two complex borders by dashed lines?

4. I think the Hooper and Lambao complexes part is a little hard to follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhmnia11 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme

[edit]
  • I am happy to see some more writing on Geology of Australia, as I have written some pages on this in earlier years.
  • Reference coverage is good, but there is no reference for "Regional Geology" intro paragraph.
  • Thanks for using cite templates, doi's and isbns as it make it easy to find and fix references.
  • Kimberley Craton; Speewah Basin and Kimberley Basin are on the map, in the Kimberleys and mentioned, but there is no further detail.
  • It would be good to have some general introduction to the area, like dimensions, area, topography, major towns and roads for access.
  • Is there any relationship to rocks found on other continents?
  • Some references are about zircon geochronology, but you don't mention the zircon data in your text. Is there anything interesting to say about this?

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gabriel

[edit]

Maps, diagrams and cross-sections are big and it is easy to read. Very good. The page is detail.

I think there is few mistakes in the page. 1. For the table inside the section "Eastern Zone", I think the order has some problem. I think you can change the Age "1865-->1870-->1920Ma" Or switch the column "Zone and "Age"

2. I think it is better to add some legend to the cross-sections in the tectonic evolution part. I can see you use color to distingish different units or features. But I think you miss some of them.

Overall the page is real good. I enjoy reading your page. Gabriel HY Lam (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No progress on this nomination in over a month and it does not seem that the issues could be addressed.

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Timothy D. Chow (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 07:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

  • The scope of this article feels odd; it's about geology, a craton and associated features, but its overt scope is a geopolitical unit, leading to the inclusion of a bit of content on major towns etc. (cited to other Wikipedia articles, which is not to WP:RS standards). Though now uncited, that content is fairly irrelevant. Would a rename work?
The article has excellent content, but needs a through copyedit if not a rewrite. The language is more suited to an academic paper than an encyclopedia article, and the English needs polishing. I have begun this work, but the WP:Guild of Copyeditors or the WP:WikiProject Geology might be a better place to recruit eyes. The article is severely overlinked, with basic terms linked repeatedly, sometimes to inappropriate targets (articles on other uses of the words). I'm not sure why it uses an island infobox template. HLHJ (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regional geology articles and books usually do have a small section on the general geography, so that humans know how it relates to other things they are familiar with, and it will set the scope of area for the study. The scope really is the geology, not the political unit, though the geological structure has partly defined the name and extent of the area it covers. I added a reference to support the general into, so it's not now unreferenced. But here is a hook alternative that makes it clear that the linked article is about the geology and not the region. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • alt1 * ... that the Kimberley Basin has the youngest rocks in the Kimberley region of Western Australia even though they are 1.8 billion years old?
Thank you, Graeme Bartlett. It's now all cited, though I still need the supporting quote for the hook. I've done a more extensive copyedit; there are a lot of parts that need clarifying, and I may have misunderstood the text at some points.
Contrasting the Weald with Weald Basin, the first is about a geographic area defined by its geology, the second about a geologic feature. Both seem like good scopes, and the content on how the human beings living in the Wald have been affected by the geology is also excellent. This article's title says that its scope is the geology of a politically-defined area, which seems odd. That why I suggested a rename of the article, not the hook; sorry if I wasn't clear. It's still very overlinked; EG metamorphism being linked multiple times in a single sentence. There are some problems with the image accreditation which I've raised with the author on their talk page. A good article, but there are a few issues. HLHJ (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having now had time to look at the content of the article, and read sources, I'm rejecting both proposed hooks as untrue. There are lots of younger rocks in this region, like the conspicuous Devonian reefs, which are about a quarter the age. The article simple didn't cover post-Paleoproterozoic geology. This is a major omission, like writing History of Britain and only covering the Early Mesolithic. I've expanded the lede outline to reference later events, and templated for expansion. Helloheart has started fixing the overlinking, which is great. I'm not sure this article is likely to be fixed up enough, soon enough, for DYK; I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm not volunteering to do all the work required, I'm afraid. HLHJ (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me what's going on with the early versions of the article? it's a completely different draft, for an article which doesn't seem to exist anywhere now, and the content looks useful. HLHJ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing that our writer: Timothy D. Chow started with one topic in his sandbox and then switched. But there are no references. If there were references I could do a history split and make a different article out of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can one draftify a history split? HLHJ (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can delete the page; restore the revisions about Hong Kong; rename; then restore the Kimberley revisions. Would you like me to do this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering, Graeme Bartlett, I'd have no idea how to do that. While not in any way urgent, it sounds like a good idea, and the topic is notable, if mostly because it's a tourist attraction.[1][2][3] There are probably more sources in Cantonese and Mandarin, too. We should mention this to the author; but he seems to be a bit busy just now as he isn't responding to talk page posts. If it sits in drafts for awhile, that's better than losing it; we could link it from Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark and Tung Ping Chau. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK now we have Draft:Geology of Tung Ping Chau. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've added some more sources and text. It's still not very fleshed-out, but could probably technically go in the mainspace now if anyone gets impatient. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. extremely uncontroversial, no opposition. In the future, similar moves can be made manually or via WP:RMTR. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Kimberley (Western Australia) → Geology of the Kimberley (Western Australia) – Grammar correction. Steelkamp (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geology_of_the_Kimberley_(Western_Australia)&oldid=1241764506"