Talk:Fault zone hydrogeology

[Untitled]
Hi Oscar,

Here is some feedback from a non-specialist reader. I thought the article is well-written and well organized. I particularly liked the visuals and I think these are all self-designed so well done here (it must have taken quite a bit of time to design these). Here are some suggestions for your article:

1. I think it's a good idea to reference each visual and table in the text (not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this). However, I think you should do this as briefly as possible and just write (Figure 1) rather than in Section 1.3 where you do this in a sentence. I also think you shouldn't refer to a table in another section. 2. I wonder whether the circles in Figures 2 - 5 can have colour and whether this would make them more attractive. I think the circles are very clear in each picture though. 3. I wonder whether you should use an abbreviation in headings and sub-headings e.g. Enhancing FZ Permeability. Maybe use the full version instead? 4. I'm not sure whether section 1.7 adds anything to the article. Maybe revise or delete this?

Thanks,

Textbookzoom3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textbookzoom3 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's try the talk page!

Hi Oscar,

The page is well organised and the content is so detail. However, there are some suggestions as follow.

First, explain more on the different technical terms such as faulting. I am not sure but does all faulting cause increase or decrease permeability?.

Second, match the result of deformation to the related faulting. In your page, you mention a lot of deformation, geologists and layman are not easy to follow.

Third, explain the Magnitude, readers cannot have the idea of the changes of magnitude.

Keep Going!!!

Marco:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolam308 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oscar,

Good work on your page! Some minor points which you may consider are as follows:

You could put the table of contents (TOC) after the introduction, as in most wiki pages. This would make the initial view of the page more accessible to your readers.

Good use of a clear table to compare between rock types. However, I find Table 1 Common Permeability Structures of Fault Zone, difficult to understand due to the terminology. It is good you provide definitions of the terms but is there a way to make this more accessible?

Good use of the "useful links" box, I will be taking this to my page too!

The mechanisms you list which enhance/reduce FZ Permeability - in which part fo the fault zone do they occur - fault core or damage zone? or in a specific place within these zones?

Good diagram in figure 1, but you should reference the author who first presented this idea in the literature to give them credit. This isn't the original author, but Agust Gudmundsson has a whole book and LOTS of papers on this - he is a lecturer at Royal Holloway University where I did my undergrad. His work should be very helpful to you!

For your diagram of clay smearing, pay attention to the thickness of the clay layers - is this accurate?

The implications of fault zone processes outlined in "Issues brought by FZ" highlight the importance of this page. Could this also be summarised in the introduction?

"Into the Unknowns" sounds informal, could you phrase this differently? "Issues brought by FZs" - in titles and section headings you should write Fault Zones in full "Numerous mechanisms that can vary the permeability of a fault zone", I don't think you need the word "that" here.

Well done again!

Hayley

Hrhunt (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

--- Hi Oscar,

I think your page is well-structured and the concepts are explained clearly with the use of diagrams. Tables used especially table 1 and 3 are really helpful in presenting the ideas.

Here are some suggestions:

The introduction is a good overview of the page. However, in the second sentence, you may want to point out explicitly what does it mean by ‘the movements’.

In some other sections of the page, sentences may be made shorter with simpler phrases. For example, ‘Permeability of damage zones decreases when the distances between it and the fault core increases’ may be changed to ‘Within a damage zone, permeability decreases further away from the fault core’.

Figure 1 shows the composition of a fault zone very clearly. However, at the ground surface of the block diagram, you may use the pink and red drawings to indicate the location of FZ like the cross-section part, so that the FZ is presented as a 3-dimensional ‘sheet’.

Good work! Keep it up!

Nathalie

Nykwong (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oscar,

This is an interesting topic with explicit illustrations, good work! I would like to give you few comments!

COMMUNICATION - your tables are short and clear! - good references directing the figure numbers!

VISUALS - It would be better if you can show the water flowing direction with the reference of K values :)

CONTENTS - What is the state that CO2 is being stored in the fault zone? Do we need to aware they comes up to the surface again? - Any possible solutions for the current biases? - Any examples of how the measurement of recovery rate works? - Maybe you can tell how sealing or conduit works?

Overall its a great work ! Let's have fun in doing the page.

Kenneth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waikinl (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

- Hi Oscar,

I really love your figures, and the overall content of your page. It is fascinating to read.

Below are my suggestions 1. There are still some words that need hyperlinks, e.g., fault system and geological setting (in the first line of the introduction). A few others exist in elsewhere in the page.

2. I think that making animated figures for better visualization of the different flow pattern of water/fluid based on permeability difference will be a greater contribution of your page. Would it be possible for you to consider this?

3. I am also aware that fractured hydrogeology is a common topic of interest among hydrogeologist and civil engineers. Can you also think of linking your page like a keyword, so that people who with interest in fractured hydrogeology easily find your page as a complementary reference?

In overall, I love your page.

Cheers, Blessing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessingAdeoti (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC) ---

HI Oscar:

Hey Oscar, you have nice and short introduction! Like your concise writing style, and good use of useful links! I have some comments for you below:

I wish you could mention the importance of knowing this subject in the introduction.

1. Maybe you can add the definition of permeability in the classification section.

2. In what conditions do K(fz) < K(hs)? maybe you can explain when and how does one permeability is larger than another. Eg What rock types? Or the condition of the fault damage zones

3. (Issues brought by FZ)why deformation band blocks the fluid flow? Btw good use of gif visuals.

4. What is superconducting gravity data? You may add one or two sentences explaining this.

5. Good use of tables! They are simple and clear without much words

6. Is fault zone different from a simple fault? What causes the difference among them?

Keep fighting geo bobo

Kenneth 16 Nov, 2

-

Hi Oscar,

The GIFs are so nice!

Some suggestions you may consider:

In the introduction section, the second sentence may be changed to “fluid movements can be facilitated and/or impeded…”

Paragraph about compaction and cementation is a bit hard to understand. You may want to rephrase the sentences. Also, I am not sure what kind of deformation do you mean.

In figure 1, the legend symbols are offset.

In table 1, can you make a larger spacing between Kfz < Khr and Kfz > Khr ?

It’s a very informative page overall, good work!

Nathalie

Nykwong (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

-

Hi Oscar, Hayley here again!

Has your introduction become shorter? It is only three sentences long and I wonder if there are more important take away points from your page which you would want to summarise in the introduction? Should GIF 3 be labelled C not A? If these GIF show progressive changes they should be aligned vertically or horizontally. At the moment they are offset and disrupting your see also section. Do figures need labels e.g. figure 1? In fig. 1 your legend labels are offset. I wonder if there is a better way to integrate figs 3-6 into the page than on the right hand side?

Well done!

Hayley Hrhunt (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oscar,

Your gif and pics are great!

You can explain the definition of the mechanisms. You can use some pics to explain the type of fault, or you can mention the type of fault in other pics. You can locate some places where to explore petroleum or ore minerals.

Good Work! Marco