Talk:Eastern Pilbara Craton

Carson's Review
This is a well written and structured article. I enjoyed reading it and looking at the various pictures and diagrams. There are only a couple of suggestions which you might wish to consider. First, there are multiple red colored links under sections Partial Convection Overturn, Archean Crust, and Region Structures. These links do not work. Secondly, under the section Description you could try to create a real list, not just one integrated into the paragraph itself. I enjoyed viewing the pictures and the diagrams were simple and easy to understand. Great list of references.

Introduction
The author gave a concise but informed introduction which enables one has no background knowledge on this topic get information quickly. At this point, the author did better than me, I only did "briefly" but not informed.

Description
The figure is awesome since it provide two scale map view, helping readers effectively locate the area. I recommend add a section like geological settings (maybe take some information from the history?) before this section or as a sub-heading within this section

Formation and History
This section is great.

Geologic relevance
This section is useful and provides readers controversial views and research in the region. I would learn from the author.

In general
The author gave a clear and concise decryption of the Eastern Pilbara Crato. However, I think there is relatively less information in "tectonic" or to say "dynamic" and "evolution" (the author did provide. For example, in the section of history and formation, but I think it eoulf be better to give a separate section to tectonics), while the author give quite detailed information in lithology.

Overall, the term is well interpreted, and through the text the author offers lot of link which point to other terms. I will recommend more information in geologic background and give a separate section for tectonics or the revolution of the region. From this page, I've also learned from the author: 1) provide figures in different scales to be more precise and "reader-friendly"; 2) provide links for other terms throughout the text.

Hongcheng Guo (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyler Hebert
First off this is a great page with lots of detailed information. However, I don't know if the average person would be able to read and comprehend the topic and some of the the vocabulary. Maybe try to explain in more detail some of the topic you brought up that don't have their own wiki page. Also I like your figure, however, you might want to reference it on your page and explain it in more depth so people will have a better idea of what it's showing. But overall great page with a lot of good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.J.Hebert (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben Durel
Overall great page! For starters you may consider adding a title to the introductory paragraph which seems to the location and basic geologic background of the region. This portion could potentially just go along with the initial descriptions section. There is some importance on attempting to give a basic broad overview of the topic such that anyone who may stumble on this page may understand what your page is on. I thought this section was done well, I liked the break down of strata. I found your history and formation section very informative and well done with citations. This section however could be touched up in terms of wording in a couple of sentences but over all well done! The Geological Relevance section seemed to be your weakest point on the page due to overall vagueness of what is being said. I understand that studying this location will give in site on earths geology, but maybe if you were to add specific research that has been done or what in specific was been discovered in early earth research.

Comments from Graeme Bartlett
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The earlier commenters have given some good suggestions. I would like to see a more detailed geological map, with say 10 to 20 different geological units.
 * Please explain the neighboring regions, there is a bit more to the south east and west, do these parts of the Pilbara have a name?
 * A timeline would be good for this, as the ages are far from familiar geological periods.
 * The geologic relevance section is a bit of a teaser, suggesting there is a lot more, but we don't get to see it.
 * Avoid using "we" or other first person, as this is an encyclopedia rather than a teaching material.
 * The geologic relevance and granitic domes section are both missing references. Please add them in!

Annie's Review
Hey Erinn... So glad I got to review your page! You did such a good job!

In your introduction, you might want to be a little more specific about why the "eastern" portion of the Pilbara Craton is separate from the entire craton. For example, is it the only area that contains a greenstone belt? Is it because that is the only place the rocks are exposed?

Description
Consider renaming the title of this section... Because it encompasses a lot about the area. Maybe "overview" or "physical evidence" or even "Description of the landscape." I can't really come up with a good title, but just think about it.

For anything that has a data attached to it, it might be a cool idea to bullet the points you are stating in paragraph form. Just a though, it looks really good how you have it though.

GREAT TTG section!!

Formation and history
Short, concise, easy to understand. Great section. Again, consider putting dates into bullet points for easier viewing/ understanding. (I'll probably do this for my own page, actually!)

Your images are great and really add to the overall page. [Someone needs to make a vertical tectonic page...]

Geologic Relevance
Great conclusion, really reveals the importance of your page.

Overall
You really did a great job creating a concise paper that really gave good information about your subject. Well done! Just a few links need to be checked (they are red on your page) to make sure the subject actually has a wiki page.

I think if you created a timeline portion of the paper, highlighting when certain rocks were formed, that would be a good way to keep the information organized.

Jiawei's Feedback
Hi, Erinn

Your article is a good introduction to Eastern Pilbara Craton. The content is informative and the page layout is good. Some suggestions may help you to improve this article to a better one.

In the Description section you have 4 subtitles: Archean Crust; Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts; TTG; Regional Structures. I think those subtitles is not really a parallelism so you might better to put it that way: 1. Geological Setting => Archean Crust; Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts 2. TTG 3. Regional Structures. It's just a suggestion and you might feel it unnecessary.

Also in the Description section you've mentioned two places which didn't show in any of your figures, you may want to point them out: Shaw Granitic Complex; The Warrawagine Granitic Complex.

In the head of your article you suggests that two different hypotheses have been made to explain the structure in Pilbara: vertical tectonics and subduction accretion arcs. But only vertical tectonics theory is introduced in Formation and History section. Please add the another.

Your cross section and schematic figure of Pilbara are nice, you can increase the size of them!

Good job!

Jiawei MichaelZuo (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)