Talk:River anticlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon River anticlines is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Review by Stephen Reed[edit]

  • Intro
  • I think maybe summarize this along with the other topics and make it the intro, and then start a new heading, like formation or something and go with this material.Also there is no outline, don't know if you wanted it like that or not along with no big headings just bold, also your preference but I think it looks better with bigger headings
  • Evidence
  • I like how you proved the other theory wrong before going ahead with your topic, good points. If there is another setting where this occurs it would be cood to point this out, I feel like the article could have been called river anticlines in the Himalayas.
  • Formation Processes
  • Good explanation however, it's somewhat of a repeat of your intro's 2nd paragraph. the Arun river link doesn't work.
  • Tectonic
  • I think another diagram would be good here to differentiate this from the formation, I had the same picture in my head when talking about this as the formation picture. If there is another word for aneurysm use that, aneurysm makes me cringe a little bit.


Review by Corey[edit]

Hey Michael! So, I think your intro it a little on the long side. Is there another section you could put some of the material in? An intro is supposed to draw a reader in, so if it's really long and technical, that's probs not going to happen. Also, I think the overall flow of your article is a little stilted and formal. Most Wiki articles, even really technical ones, have this flowing, easy-to-read style. You could connect things in the article with more informal language, like "in general", "therefore", etc. You need more blue-word links. I think you need a closing section. Maybe something that explains current work in the field? It just abruptly ends with aneurysms.

Cshirc1 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)cshirc1

Logan Kirst's review[edit]

Michael, the first thing I noticed was a memo at the top of the page saying your topic is an orphan...I feel kind of sad for your page now. Another thing that jumped out at me was the additional content you added into your sections. You really beefed up this article compared to your rough draft, and I'm sure that must have been rather difficult because it is such a cutting edge and recently postulated topic. With that said, I think this page is rather informative. It reads pretty smoothly and the language doesn't distract or fluster the reader. The only thing I would work on is your figure. Even though it is such a newly fostered idea, I'm sure you can still add additional detail, maybe even creating a figure you interpreted/thought of on your own? Maybe show a map of possible river anticlines around the world? It would be interesting to see if there is any evidence for this is the grand canyon...anywho, good job amigo. I'll see you in about 15 minutes.