Talk:Grouse Creek block

Jacob G. 2nd Review

 * Good introduction that outlines the idea, purpose, and importance of the page. I don't think it matters that it's not on a basic level of understanding because that content is inside.
 * One or two areas where I got tripped up on wording.
 * Great formatting of the article and use of figures.
 * Great second figure, just wish the text was bigger on the second figure.

Overall, I think this is the best wiki page I've read from our class. It is to the point but says a lot. It's smooth in delivery and the figures benefit the reading. I don't know how to judge if it's on the same level that we are supposed to write it to because it doesn't seem like it can be simplified. I think you could make a good argument for this current draft being the best way to present this information.

Dustin B. 2nd Review

 * Looks good, I do not have much to say about this article. Your figure looks nice and the article was fairly easy to understand.


 * The only thing I would suggest is to give an explanation for how the Isotopic analysis constrains the location of the block. For example what information does the isotopic analysis provide?

DBoyd13 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by Ryan
This article is really great at being simple and still very informative. The figures are great and compliment what you are saying well. I couldn't find any grammatical errors or things to add such as wiki links. The paper is definitely worthy of a final draft. Theres one thing i think could improve your paper but I'm not sure if its necessary. In the final section you explain the problem/purpose for writing an article on the Grouse Creek block by explaining how it was debatable. If you put that one part in the introduction, then it would give your reader a reason to continue reading the article. It wasn't until I read that section, that I actually understood why anyone would care about the Grouse Creek Block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbouch2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed name
This is a good start to the article, but it does leave the reader wondering: Who is proposing this name? Is it an official proposal, or just a name used by certain authors? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)