User talk:Wongtszyanyuki/CentralAsianOrogenicBelt

Hi Wongtszyanyuki

Firstly let me say your draft is generally quite comprehensive. I think most essential contents are included. I especially appreciate the hypotheses of COAB’s formation are illustrated. One thing about the content you could consider mentioning is the coal reserves in CAOB. Also, in the part of “Mineral ore”, you could link the PGE in dunite to the/which ophiolites, as the readers might not know the these things are related. Below is the feedback according to the marking scheme:

Organization: the sub-headings are little bit confusing -- if I were you, I would change “Geology” to “Petrology and structural geology”, and just name the hypotheses directly, but of course you can name them with something even better; some paragraphs can be divided e.g. Mineral ore, you may separate PGE, Au and Cu into 3 paragraphs. Introduction: the sentences can be shortened: the 1st paragraph is a bit clumsy; the backgrounds and scientific elements are well illustrated Language: clear and easy to understand; no obvious grammatical mistakes Illustration/visual: in the Geomap, I cannot see the Southern boundary of CAOB as it is blocked by the undersize legend; I think it is better to tell readers how ophiolite/its implications in the Table 1; other tables are diagrams are clear Science: strong sense of science with nice explanations (scientific methods of observation, hypothesis etc.) Reference: cannot see any problem --Triton Chiu63 (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comments of lawrence

Hi

I think everything is fine, especially i like the table of geological periods with corresponding events, which makes audience easily understand the ideas.

I think you can mention the implication of CAOB to the early earth development history as well. Is that the CAOB related to other geological events in the early earth as well?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhlaw (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graeme

Hello Wongtszyanyuki,

Thanks for doing a good job with footnoting. Though the east west dimension in Location is unreferenced. Also "solving the controversy is by no means an easy task" in Geological Evolution is unreferenced. Is this your editorial comment?

My next comment is on abbreviations. Try to limit their use. I see CAOB repeated a lot of times, but it is best to use Central Asian Orogenic Belt as we are writing for a less sophisticated audience. mention the abbreviation though in case someone is looking for it, but spell things out in full. Also I see YEB which is used in the way I recommend. For IOCG and PGE, they appear to be jargon and not proper nouns, so just use the full text and on reading it, the average reader will think they know what you are talking about.

Also I will note that "Vendian" is a bit odd (perhaps dated) now that "Ediacaran is ratified since 2004. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Wongtszyanyuki, the references do have minor problems, but at this stage they are good enough to find the source and can just be tidied when it goes live. The minor problems are many dates are in the wrong format, should be February 2004, not 2014-02. It would be good to know the year or date for He, Wenjun's thesis. Normally we prefer published papers over theses, but that is not an issue here. Also ref 3 10 and 20 are giving " extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: extra text: authors list", so there is something minor to fix with the author listings. Hopefully from reviewers I would like to here if any important references are missing, and if the references support what the article says. I know that would be a few more hours of work though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rachel

Hello Yuki,

I think your page is well structured. You also make good use of tables and diagrams to illustrate different concepts.

So improvements can be made: For the geological map of CAOB, perhaps you should adjust the position and size of the legend so that it is clear and more visible for the audience. There are also some minor spelling mistakes, i.e. in Table 1, the age should be Cambrian instead of Cambrain, in Figure 5, Permain should be Permian. Some paragraphs are too long to read, you can consider separate it into some shorter paragraphs.

Good work!:)

Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhunggg (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Andy

Hi Yuki,

Your Wikipage is well organised and easy to understand. The two hypotheses of the formation of CAOB is well explained. Also, the evolution diagram of CAOB is clear. One minor problem is the spelling mistake in Figure 5F 'LATE CARONIFEROUS' — Preceding unsigned comment added by LklAndy (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jasmine

Hello there!

Lovely lovely visuals! How fascinating! So impressed by a figure 1 -you basically mapped the entire area! As well as the evolution diagram in figure 5, very informative. One thing I'd pinpoint is the age consistency in table 1. Wouldn't it be better if you either put them all in the names of geological periods or leave them all in numbers? See if it looks better to you too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminesongy (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]