Self reflection notes

Very useful and consistent feedback from everyone. I tried to simplify the topic but I could have done a better job doing so. Graphics are too small, I need to learn how to make them larger. The use of some terms were either over-explained or under-explained. Introduction could be better explained, even expanded, and avoid difficult terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgiovi (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Feedback from Michelle

Hi Giovanni, here are my suggestions:

I think the use of technical terms can be reduced in the introduction, such as “syngenetically” and “diagenetically”, those are words difficult for the public to understand. You have defined them in the terminology, but it may be better to define the technical terms before using it. So in the introduction, you may consider using a more general word instead.
There are some missing or inconsistency in the use of punctuation, such as missing a full stop at the end of the second paragraph in the introduction, and inconsistency in using commas and full stops in the Mining Activity section.
Some citations are missing in the text and figures, such as for the sentence in your Background section: “According to Yardley and Cleverley, the hydrothermal solutions can have four origins….”, and the figure showing skarn deposits distribution may have a citation in the caption.

Best,

Myip003 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Feedback from Ivan

Hi Giovanni! These are some suggestions for your article:

The headings are all bold. I reckon it is better not in order to use bold font to match other Wiki articles.
In the introduction, both mineral and ore are used. This may be confusing for readers so I suggest using ore only to be consistent.
The introduction is quite difficult for general readers to understand. You may define Hydrothermal ore deposits more specifically in the first sentence instead of classifying ore deposits. To arouse interest, you may extend the part by stating the importance of the subject. Also, you may avoid using technical terms.
The background and terminology may be repetitive with other articles, e.g. ore, ore genesis, mineral resource classification, cutoff grade. You can simply reduce them into hyperlinks when some terms are mentioned.
Hyperlinks are rarely found in this page. You could help readers understand if you could put more in the rest of your article.

Cheers,
Ivancyyip (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Jupiter

Your page is rich in content, very informative with details about deposit types. However, you may want to make use of some structuring tools in order to make it look more clear on the page.

Here are some suggestions for your page:

1. In the introduction, starting with something like "Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits are minerals formed by the precipitation of hydrothermal fluids..." may be more clear. Start with a direct and short definition first, and then explain the types of orebodies and subdivisions.

2. One important thing about your page is the diagrams are too small. People cannot read the words and graphics directly on your page. Enlarge all the images.

3. You have mainly illustrative diagrams in your page, but it is also useful to include some images of a rock sample of the deposits. You can find these images on Wikipedia directly, such as those in Skarn and Ore genesis.

4. For the "Deposit Types" section, you have subdivided the content of each deposit types into "formation", "characteristics" and "mining activity". You may want to do it with "paragraph" tool, such as below:

Hydrothermal Deposit Types

Porphyry Ore Deposits

Formation

Characteristics

Mining Activity

In this case, your reader can be able to search for information directly in the table of contents.

5. Some of the text is quite technical. You may want to use hyperlinks or replace some of them with plain language.

Peer Feedbcak from Justin

This content of this wiki page is wealth. The organization is clear.

Hyperlinks are important for new readers to get more information. This manuscript has a little hyperlink.
Many citations are missing, especially in the different types ore formation part.
The part of Background and terminology should omit and use hyperlinks.
Some formation process of ore could use figures to illustrate the idea.
I believe some formation processes of hydrothermal ore are still in debate. You should mention other hypotheses. So the formation process is not so important for general people compared with the significance of this type of ore. So the significance of ore should add more content or data.
See also part could include some external source like reviewer papers, websites and reports, instead of wiki pages.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinbl (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Harriet

Your page is informative and very helpful for me to understand the materials of my another course (EASC3412 Earth Resources). Thank you for making this page. Here are some comments:

you might want to add more words to your figures to explain it. For example, the skarn formation figure only contains bullet points and some geology terms describing the stages. Generalists may not be familiar with those terms such as "isochemical contact metamorphism", deuteric fluids", "meteoric water", etc. Even for me, who is a student in geology, am not familiar with these terms.
there are very few links on geology terms in your page. You may consider adding more.
you have made very good use on point form sentences and tables.
your paragraphs are short and concise
you have a lot of figures on your page which is very nice for me :)
you may consider minimizing the use of geology terms for your generalist readers to understand. You can replace them with easier terms or explain them right in your paragraphs.
In your figures, you did not tell the readers what are you drawing. For example, on the red sea figure, you only marked the blue middle as red sea but did not annotate the white blocks on both sides. What are they?

HarrietHKUGeology (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrietHKUGeology (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from George

- more explanatory details on figure captions (first figure in particular, especially as it would be the first one to be read) but keeping them simple and accessible would help make sense of the respective processes
- the topic creates a tough balance between detailing complete scientific accuracy whilst also keeping it simple and accessible. I think the tables, especially 'porphyry characteristics' handles this well. i would try to extent this to re structuring the opening information; maybe bullet points? subheadings? and brief explanations of geologic terms to aid with broader explanation
- overall the page is very informative and clearly spread out to access specific content or the complete article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgealee (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Why is there no link to the already established articles :_

--20:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)