Talk:Xiong'er Volcanic Belt

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 13:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Edits for The Xiong'er Volcanic Belt by Austin Bennett

I will separate edits by section.

Overview

"The Xiong'er Volcanic Belt which is also known as the Xiong'er Group is a 1770 to 1800 million year old group of volcanic rocks. [1] It is located on the southern edge of the North China craton in the areas of Zhongtaioshan, Xiaoshan, Xiong'ershan and Waifangshan of present day China (Figure 1).[1] [2]" ---These two sentences and the following sentence should be combined for better readability. consider: The Xiong'er Volcanic Belt, also known as the Xiong'er Group, is a 1770 to 1800 million year old group of volcanic rocks located on the southern edge of the North China craton. It comprises the regions of Zhongtaioshan, Xiaoshan, Xiong'ershan and Waifangshan of present day China (Figure 1), covering an area approximately 60,000 km2 and varying from 3000m to 7000m thick.

Spellchecks in the first section:

perimiter = perimeter

"formed at a time in the earths history when the all of the continents were joined together forming the Supercontinent Columbia which is the earliest known supercontinent." should be "formed at a time in Earth history when all of the continents were joined together forming the Supercontinent Columbia, the earliest known supercontinent."

"volcanic belt is composed of three faults, the Jianxian-Lintong" should be "volcanic belt is composed of three faults: the Jianxian-Lintong"

Figure 1: The caption should read like: Location of the North China craton with X marking the approximate location of the Xiong'er Volcanic Belt.

Geologic Formations

"made up of four geologic formations, one sedimentary and three volcanic." would read better as "made up of four geologic formations which include one sedimentary and three volcanic units"

"The Daguish formation is bottom most formation whith a mazimum thickness" should be "The Daguish formation is the bottom most formation with a maximum thickness"

"composed of the volcanic rocks basalt andesite and andesite." i'm not 100% sure on this but should it read "basaltic andesite"? This appears again in the Jidanping Formation description as well as the Majiahe Formation description

Figure 2: "by an rising" should be "by a rising"

Tectonic setting

"setting in which Xiong'er Volcanic Belt" should be "setting in which the Xiong'er Volcanic Belt"

"geochemical data which is belived to be similar" should be "geochemical data which is believed to be similar"

Some sentence structure edits for this section: The second sentence should be divided. You introduce in the first sentence that there are two proposed hypotheses, so the second sentence should be separated into one sentence for each, making them separate points. perhaps something like: "One hypothesis characterizes a continental rift setting, where a continent would be pulled apart as seen in Figure 2. Another hypothesis suggests an Andean type continental margin, where an oceanic plate......etc etc"

Also, you mention what type of data analysis was used to make some of these hypotheses, such as geochemical and lithology. A sentence or two describing the exact lithology studied, or the exact isotope analyses used to determine this information would be good and give you the chance to cite more.

Significance of tectonic setting

"If the xiong'er volcanic belt represents as rift" the subject should still be capitalized here, and "as" should be "a"

"the north china craton faced " North China craton should still be capitalized

"it is a andean type" should be "it is an Andean type"

"have faced the opean ocean" should be "have faced the open ocean"

General article wide comments

1. The article flows pretty well and multiple original figures support what is discussed directly. Good job on that.

2. Try to link as many proper nouns to other wikipedia article as you can. Look for wikipedia articles for all of the regions in China that you listed and link them in

3. You can find more sources for this. Even if additional sources provide the same information as previous sources, having long lists of citations at the end of EVERY sentence helps give your statements some weight. Every setence should have at least one citation at the end of it if this isn't your research. I think 8 to 10 references would be appropriate for the amount of information in this article.

4. Really good job on the structure of this article with multiple headings.

Peer Review Ryan Boucher

I like your topic and how you divided up the sections. Overall the article flows well and the figures are very simple yet still very informative.

Some things to improve would be grammatical errors which I'll list:

• craton and perimeter are misspelled in the introduction.

• misspelled maximum and forgot to add a the in the Daguish section.

• misspelled continental, need an apostrophe after hypothesis, and add the in the tectonic setting section.

• capitalize Xiong'er and the sentence structure in the final section is weird.

Some others things to work on could be:

1. Adding additions wiki citations to your article.

1. Adding pronunciations for the Chinese terms.

1. Adding additional references. This topic might not be widely publicized but I'm sure there are some more floating around out there.

1. At the end of the Tectonic Setting section, you stated that the lithology and geochemical data are evidence for an Andean type continental margin. To further prove your point, you should add what lithology and what the geochemical data is.

Overall the article is good for a draft page. Many of the improvements that need to be made are simple. Aside from pronouncing the Chinese names, anyone that will read this article should easily understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbouch2 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Jacob Bourgeois

I find your topic very interesting! Your page has good proportionality and flows well from subject to subject. I like your personal renderring. It shows a lot of effort and creativity put forth!

Intro Paragraph

There are some grammatical errors in the first paragraph: perimeter (4th sentence) and craton (last sentence) A couple of sentences in the first paragraph are slightly awkward and may need some revision. Delete the word "the" after the word when in the 4th sentence. All in all the paragraph is well written from an informational point of view, but I would see the English writing lab for possible revisions to a few prepositions, and/or sentence structure, and/or word choice.

Geologic Formations

I like how you separated the section into a list of all four formations which are ordered by depth! Word choice is my only objection to this section. Maybe use "depth" and "deepest" instead of "bottom" in this section. Sounds a bit more professional to me, but the word choice is clearly up to you. Nonetheless, great section! I like the drawing in the section. Maybe you could create an additional drawing depicting the sequence of formations with their conformities/unconformities b/n them? All up to you!

Tectonic Setting

I like this section. It gives a clear and concise explanation of the two ideas of formation. I don't see anything wrong with it. You could possibly add some more information about the geochem. data and/or what mafic dyke swarms are? All I am saying is that you may be able to go a little futher with your explanation if you would like to.

Significance

Well written paragraph! I have no objections to it!

References

Your references look good to me! Jbour46 (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jacob G. Edits - 2nd Review

• Why is it important what kind of boundary is known along that part? Putting it back together? Minerals?
• How do the geologic formations relate to the volcanic belt and hypotheses that were outlined?
• The paragraph discussing hypotheses is difficult to read.
• The tectonic setting significance needs to be fleshed out more for why it is significant. The long sentence needs to be reworked into a shorter one, or 2 short ones.
• For this class I think we are supposed to introduce a concept as well as providing the internal wiki link. In some instances only the link was provided.
• There is a space between the in text citation source tags (bracketed exponent) and no space between the tag and the next sentence. Pick one way to do it and stick to it.
• Would it be easier to cite the original source for a sentence that only has one idea?

Overall good topic. I liked the use of the figures. If we had a stratigraphic chart to tie in with the geologic map, or a profile your formation descriptions would benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgross2atLSU (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tara Comments

> Put a space between meters and number, ie: 6000 m

> "perimeter" not "perimiter"

> do not capitalize directions

> an extra "the", in "when the all of the continents..."

> uncover the history?

> When referring to singular formations, capitalize. Ex: Danguish Formation. When referencing multiple formations, you never capitalize.

> link to Archean, Paleoproterozoic pages, and meso-Neoproterozoic if they exist

> is Meso-Neoproterozoic referring to a formal Period? Or are you saying that it is the middle of the Neoproterozoic?

> misspelled "with" as "whith"

> You need some commas between your volcanic rock types listed in the Xushan Formation

> It is "basaltic andesite", not "basalt andesite"

> How is the Jidanping Formation a "mixture" of these rocks? Are they all erupted together and mixed? Or is it just a thick sequence of independent lava flows or tephra from all of these?

> For your stratigraphic descriptions, a strat column would be the most useful thing to make this understandable to the reader

> Unless you're using British English, "dyke" is "dike" for hypabyssal volcanic rock

> misspelled "continental" as "continetal"

> Is the continental really being "pulled apart"?? Or is it being pushed apart by an actively rising plume?

> fix your reference to Figure 4

t is somewhat vague, has a slightly awkward flow, and a bit disorganized. Perhaps having two subsections, one for "Rift Hypothesis" and one for "Subduction Hypothesis", would work best for presenting info and letting the reader follow your thoughts. This should be the main section of your article!

> You mention this nebulous "geochemical data" but fail to mention anything about it! Either elaborate or get rid of these references entirely.

> How does the lithology suggest an Andean-type continental margin? What about it would lead to this hypothesis?

Put the "Significance of Tectonic Setting" perhaps in the new section where you introduce the two hypotheses. This way, the reader will automatically be introduced to how/why we should continue reading, and how these interpretations could affect the reconstruction of the North China craton.

Almost all the information needed for a good article is here! I just think the organization needs a little tweaking and it should be just dandy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terranova274 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Zach Kelly Review

This page looks good. You could go a little more in depth in the Tectonic Setting section. There is also a few spelling errors that Tara pointed out. You also don't have to link the same word more than once, especially if the word comes up close to one another like Andean, basalt andesite, and basalt. You could just link it the first time it appears. Your images look good and go along with what you're saying. I also think that the writing is at the right level it needs to be. Is there anything else you could add to the Significance of Tectonic Setting?