Talk:Hadean zircon

Comments from Patrick
Hi Karaclc, A comprehensive study of Hadean zircon spanning from its origin, occurrence, the associated methods, matter properties and interpretation is presented. I like the way you present the occurrence in table and map view, which effectively convey the information. Below are some points that you may have a quick look. Cheers! Wcpatrick6572 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) One of the most significant implications of Jack Hills Zircon is that it records the early earth evolution. You may consider mentioning it in the first paragraph of the introduction.
 * 2) In the big topic of Background, you may consider splitting it into 3 sections as Importance, Abundance, Type in parallel to Analytic Method.
 * 3) A brief summary of early earth models and their association with hadean zircon could be added to your page.
 * 4) You can add one to two sentences describing the geology of the Jack Hills zircon in the Proposed mechanisms for forming Hadean Jack Hills zircons section. Or you can place the mechanism under the Abundance part, accounting for its anomalously high concentration.
 * 5) You may consider adding some explanation of the images. For instance in the Cathodoluminescent images of zircon zoning analyzed via SHRIMP image, you can mention some results we can get from the analysis, and include the full name of acronym SHRIMP in text.
 * 6) Language problems

Feedback from Tamjwh
Feedback on "Hadean zircon":

Tamjwh (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Reference footnotes could be added in some paragraphs to support the content, such as in the sub-section "Scientific contribution" under section "Impacts of Hadean zircon" and section "Proposed Mechanisms for forming Hadean Jack Hills zircons".
 * 2) Some sentences lack a subject or with logic flow that requires improvements. They are suggested to be rephrased. For example in the sub-section " Ion microprobe analysis", brief explanations can be made on time correlation and principles of using ion microprobes in measuring isotopes.
 * 3) There seems to be some mistakes in the article. For instance, the content in the sub-section "carbon" under section "Zircon geochemistry" is about Th/U rather than carbon, and modification is needed.

Review from Graeme Bartlett
Hi.

This is a lot better than when I looked at it before. I think that you should have a very clear definition in the first sentence. Give us the essential facts about the age, what it is, and that it is the only solid material from the early Earth.

Next since you say the oldest rocks are 4.02 Ga, does that mean there is some other Hadean material around? Have you had a look at Zirconian and how your article relates? What does "Ce anomaly" mean? Are there any Hadean Zircons of continental affinity? Our Geothermobarometry does not mention "zircon fO2barometry" and there seems to be few references online mentioning that, so could you please elucidate? Similarly I cannot see anyting about "Pu/U tracing", so are you sure this is the correct term? In the Plutonium section you mention 0.007 Pb/U abundance, but is that Pb really Pu? What does "EHf(T)" mean? K-spar should be expanded to full name.

Style suggestions:
 * Use °C for temperatures.
 * Put functuation before footnotes.
 * link Titanium in zircon geothermometry from Ti-in-zircon thermometer.
 * Use &amp; nbsp ; between a number and its units eg 3 ppm.
 * Use ± when talking about uncertainties.

For all your references, can you please add doi's Digital object identifier.

Also this reference looks out of place: "Tamvakopoulos, C., Dimas, K., Sofianos, Z., Hatziantoniou, S., Han, Z., Liu, Z., . . . Pantazis, P. (2007). Metabolism and Anticancer Activity of the Curcumin Analogue, Dimethoxycurcumin. Clinical Cancer Research, 13(4), 1269-1277."

I have merged references you used more than once using a tool. Take a look to see how the ref name= syntax works!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from xaviertang
Hi Karaclc, This page is quite detailed that encompasses history, analytical method and application of the discussed topic (Hadean zircon). It is also appreciating that this page has tried to cover as more things as possible. But things can be more perfect. Several suggestions are hereby for you.

1) Notice the alignment and format. It is very easy to outline the alignment errors from this page. For instance,

''Celadonite anaomaly of a zircon (Ce/Ce*) is a quantitative investigation for host magma fo2[43]. Hadean Jack Hills zircons show a range in fo2 with an average near the fayalite-magnetite-quartz(FMQ) buffer[44]. The Hadean geological setting is similar to the modern upper mantle.''

Appropriate spacing and proper use of subscribe are advised throughout this page. Notably the spacing problem, it is more clear if you add a space before and after blanket.

Another minor thing is, you may have missed some "s" after the verbs after using singular nouns. Meanwhile, you may have also mistakenly added an "s" after plural nouns.

2) Consider restructure the "Properties" part of your page. I think it is quite impossible to cover all the zircon behavior in all mineral inclusions and all isotopes. And I believe that there is rationale behind for you to only describe those minerals. You may state your reasons for that. Otherwise, using table could be a better option.

3) You may consider drawing your own figures to describe the proposed mechanism. I see that you have suggested many models. For laymen, they may not be able to understand the idea only through the words.

Hope you find my comments useful!

Xaviertang (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Review from Jupiter
Hi Karaclc.

You page gives a detailed explanation of Hadean zircon, with subsections of background, analytic method, some properties, interpretation of analysis, occurrences and proposed Mechanisms. It is a very informative page with useful images.

Here are some suggestions:

1. The first thing comes to me is the table in the section of "Occurrences". You group the examples in "Australia", "North America", "Asia" and "South America", but the word and format do not show the grouping clearly. You may bond the names of region to make it looks different from the examples. You may want to merge table cells also, such as:

2. I also found some reference are missing in your text, especially for the "Proposed Mechanisms" section. There is NO reference in the whole section. As you are talking about a proposed mechanisms, there should be papers, which you can put it as reference.

3. Also about the last "Proposed Mechanisms" section, you mentioned about "With the hadean rock record, we can conclude that the belief of a hellish early Earth devoid of ocean is wrong.". I wonder who are we. Is it a widely accepted believe or agreed by some of the scientists or your own thought? Again, if it is a believe widely accepted or agreed by some of the scientists, you should cite them as reference. If it is your own thought, you should provide enough reference in support. A Wikipedia page is about things which is already published or well-known, thus a new personal idea should not be put on the page. Avoid using the word of "I" or "we" maybe good to solve this problem.

In short, your page is very detailed and informative with a lot of explanation and data. Your structure is also clear to present the great pile of information. A better use of table will help to improve the presentation. Also, reference and tone is also important in a wiki page. Hope my suggestions are helpful to you. Jupmira104(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reveiw from GeoJeremy
Hi Karaclc,

Here are my opinions. Hope it helps.

1) Communication: I personally think one or two sentences need to be reviewed on their sentence structure and use of conjunction to give a more effective communication purpose. After reading some of these sentences, I need to do some guessing to put the information in the order it is suppose to be. I personally think this will help as many Wiki readers would want to quickly get the information out of your article, possibly on first sight.

2)Coherence: When I was reading the "Properties" section and the "Interpretation of analysis" section, I feel that I got a bit lost. There is quite a lot of information, which is totally fine and useful, but it would also help readers by explaining why are the pieces of information there in the section. This explanation can help maintain the adherence of information to the section title and overall coherence.

3)Table in "Occurrences" section: One tiny little suggestion to the layout. I understand that you divided the locations into categories of continents, but by doing so, there are blanks on the other columns in that row. Just another first impression issue: it looks like it is incomplete.

GeoJeremy (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from dinohk
1. Under importance you should clarify what conditions were like on earth and explain in more laymen terms what it means that crustal recycling has destroyed the rock record.

2. Some of your sentences are a bit awkward. For example the first sentence under abundance of hadean zircon doesn't flow very well. I understood your point that hadean zircon is rare but it needs to be phrased better. The following sentence is also problematic, where are the 200,000 zircon grains you are refering to coming from? One locality or around the world?

3. In your interpretations I would suggest including information on what this tells us about conditions on Earth was like during the Hadean. Does the analysis alter or confirm current views on what the environment was like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Jupiter 20171120
I also think that you can add one or two sentences at the beginning or in the image capture about Jack Hills Zircon the source of the oldest material of terrestrial origin, the early earth records, to make your example more understandable to readers. For the image "ion microprobe analysis", you may want to enlarge that so the words will be readable without viewing the original image. At last, your page is concise with clear examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Jay
1. AI noticed you explained your abbreviation for Secondary Ion Spectrometry in 'Analytical method'. However, the first SIMS appeared in 'carbon' section of 'Zircon geochemistry' It may be better to also put the explanation on the carbon section as well.

2. I think it is better also to explain the abreviations REE & LREE

3. Do you mean: 'Since there was no evidence showing how the palo-environment was like in the past' under interpretation of analysis?

Feedback by Celia
I think the article is very well structured with good introduction. Just I saw some sentences that are without references. It might be better If you cold add it back. For places where some mechanism is involved (e.g deeper understanding of Hadean earth), I think it will be easier to understand if some diagrams are added. Celiayangyy (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from Dinohk
There are some places where citations appear to be missing, such as 'For example, some recent researches are using Hadean zircon data to formulate Archean environment'

You provided links to some acronyms like REE but it would be better to actually spell out what that is at least once and include the link for the reader so they don't necessarily have to follow the link to know what that stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK current
Where does it say "that Australia has the earliest mineral grains of Earth's history in the form of Hadean zircon?" I don't see that in the article. I checked three sources in differenf parts of the article, not the DYK claim, which I can't find in the article, and tagged the one as failed verification for randomly inventing quartzite where none was mentioned. The other two failed, also, but I am on mobile.

I cant find this specific claim in the article, or the age of the Jack Hills zircons. Did I miss it. Why so many obvious geology missteps, doesn't Wikipedia have geologists? You need them. There are many obvious geological errors in what could be a valuable article to have in Wikipeida.

Where is this specific claim?

Thanks, --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:63 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Methods
It feels like parts of a scientific paper have been pasted into this article without thought. For instance, why say "For inclusions investigation, JEOL 8600 electron microprobe analyzer (EPMA) were used to chemically analyze zircon"? Is this the only possible way to analyse any zircon? Or were these the only zircons that will ever be analysed? Or should an article about zircons be a little more hands-off about such procedural details from one paper among many?

Imagine if an article on some aspect of human anatomy - the spleen, perhaps - said "The patient was admitted to Capital City hospital on Wednesday..." bobrayner (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)