Talk:Earth's crustal evolution

Feedback from Jupiter
Your page is well structured with clear figures and animation.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Some of the words are quite technical. You can add hyperlinks to these keywords, such as the name of different minerals and physical properties. If you cannot find a hyperlink for a particular term, you may want to explain that in one or two phrases or replace that with plain language.

2. You may want to enlarge all the figures and animation. The words are too small to view on your page directly.

3. For some part, especially most of your work is supported by a single citation, you may want to use more hedging words. For example, the time of early subduction at 4 Ga and models for early earth, these are highly questionable and you may want to avoid putting these on your page or state clearly that some of them are still hypotheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Blessing
Your work is fine with good outlines! Find some of my few comments and suggestions below.

1. I think your expressions are highly technical. You would consider making your expression a bit simpler for the general audience. 2. There are a lot of stand alone statements, which are to be supported with references but are not. 3. You did not link any of the technical words or terms with other Wikipedia page. e.g. crust, thermodynamics, minerals, Archaean, mantle, all the planets you mentioned. Some of these are existing on Wikipedia page so you should link them. 4. The texts in the second and third pictures are not legible. You should see to that. 5. Remember to edit the dates of about ten of the references. Some references are not well cited also. e.g. reference no. 16.BlessingAdeoti (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Harriet
Your figures are very clear and ey to understand. I like the figure showing advection in the mantle. Your length is also appropriate. suggestions 1. Your expressions are sometimes difficult for general public to understand. For example terms like "low dynamic viscosity", "high pressure polymorphs". You might want to further explain them or link them. 2. The section "Late Heavy Bombardment" is not referenced. You may want to link it with a reference. 3. You may enlarge some of the figures to make the text in it easier to read. HarrietHKUGeology (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Anyang
Hi George, here are my suggestions:

1. The development of plate tectonics on Earth may be a gradual and continuous process, and a sudden initiation may not have happened. Some Recent mantle convection modeling demonstrates this point pretty well. E.g. Fischer & Gerya, 2016. Regimes of subduction and lithospheric dynamics in the Precambrian: 3D thermomechanical modelling.

2. I suppose that the heat-pipe model is a hypothesis accounting for early SOLID earth tectonics, but not dealing with the magma ocean solidification. In the case of heat-pipe earth, melt produced from burial is less dense than the crust, thus rise to generate volcanism, which does not require a mantle plume (no matter solid or liquid); while in the case of the magma ocean, the surface volcanism essentially requires liquid mantle plumes to generate.

3. You mentioned that the moon preserved its primordial crust. However, even if the crust of the moon (which is largely felsic) is primordial, it is intrinsically different from the primordial crust of the earth (which is ultramafic as you mentioned), despite that the moon composition is similar to that of the earth's primitive mantle. The Moon either went through differential crystallization at the first place or have experienced crustal reworking after the formation of a primitive mafic crust like our earth. Therefore, I do not think it is a good example here.

4. When you demonstrate tertiary crust, I suppose you refer to a modern continental crust. It will be better to give some examples in this section.

5. The early subduction at 4 Ga is highly questionable and not widely accepted. I suppose it is not appropriate to put down here.

Adayding (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

own feedback

 * realised after submission that i have not linked any keywords to their respective wiki pages, helping make the more complex areas more accessible to the average reader
 * the final original figure has a resolution lower than the version uploaded which i also only appreciated after completion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgealee (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Harriet
Your page is very nicely done.
 * all geology terms are well-explained or linked.
 * paragraph lengths are short enough and easy to read
 * your captions explained your figures well especially for the plot
 * On the figure about complex impact crater formation, the excavation stage and modification stage are not annotated. You may want to explain what is going on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrietHKUGeology (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

thumb

Feedback from Justin
Your wiki page is well constructed and easy to read. Here some suggestions for you:

1. Your topic is about Crustal evolution. This is is board topic including all solid rocky plants, like Venus, Mars, Mercury and so on. You content focus on the crustal evolution of Earth. I suggest you change the title to Crustal evolution of Earth.

2. I think this figure could help you illustrate the types of crust.

3. The book "Planetary Crus" from Taylor and McLennan is a great reference of this topic.

4. In the text of primordial crust, "... the subduction and subsequent destruction of tectonic plates", I think the subduction is part of planet tectonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinbl (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's circumference which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)