Talk:Isua Greenstone Belt

Carson's Review
Hey Annie! Your article on the Isua Greenstone Belt is excellent! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Overall the article is well written and structured, and I only have a few suggestions which might want to consider. In the Intro section, the last sentence could be reworked (starting a sentence with also). The Overview section is informative but is a very large block of text which you could separate. Under Lithologies you could another rock picture if possible. There is also a huge caption under the black and white tectonics picture. This caption contains good information but could be condensed. The Formation section is also a huge block of text which could be reworked. The rest of the article and the references are great!

Jiawei's Feedback
Hi Annie

Your article is informative and comprehensive and easy to read. It's an excellent work with good structure and content. No major revise is needed and I'm here only to give some minor suggestions.

The intro for Isua Greenstone Belt is nice, though I think you can have a map view showing the geological units of this place. You can enlarge the second figure which showing types of rocks that were formed and when during the evolution of the Isua Greenstone Belt, it's a good carton but merely readable because its small size. And I don't know what's the Y-axis supposed to be, is it depth or something else? You do have a lot of words under the third figure, and I think it's unnecessary. I think you only need to put down a concise description of it under this figure and move all the further explanation into the context of tectonics section.

Jiawei Zuo MichaelZuo (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
With all the pages that link here, this article deserves a little clean-up. It's pretty unreadible right now, and since I have no geology background, I'm not going to try to touch it up. A picture would be nice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eganjt (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It deserves more than a little cleanup; more like a complete rewrite. In its present form, it's mostly a set of passages copied nearly verbatim from various research papers with little thought for appropriateness or structure.  I've tagged it accordingly, and I've also added a note at WikiProject Geology's talk page.

Ill do something soon after m done with my exams! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.133.28 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The first part dose not show up on Google so I think we should remove the copied and pasted template.72.25.192.4 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article appears to have been copied from several sources, examples of which are shown below where I compare the revision of 04:02, 16 August 2006 with the sources. Given that a single user introduced everything in this revision it is therefore all of concern (see also this talk page history for a more complete analysis). This version is foundational to anything after that so all following versions are also copyright concerns. Most of it is extremely close paraphrasing rather than straight copying, although there is some straight copying. Given the extremely close paraphrasing, the fact that structure is often very similar and the number of sources I think this is enough of a copyright concern that deletion of this text is the only sensible option. As such I have reverted to the previous version. Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

age of ISB
thorium-uranium zircons dated to 3.691-9 billion years old - what meaning is intended here? Is that 3.691 to 3.699 billion years or something else? Clarification required - I'd expect to see a date +/- error range. cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * also why does the map title continue to shows as vandalised version unless I'm logged in?
 * The source backing the claim that the IGB is the site of the oldest known rock on Earth apears to be rather outdated (2007). A more recent study of the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt suggests that it may be older.  Volcano  guy  08:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I updated the text. The Isua isn't the oldest, and the ref doesn't claim this either. Acasta Gneiss is the oldest known rock; oldest melt extraction from the mantle is around Hudson Bay, and oldest minerals are zircons from Australia. Andy Wickert (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Title
The commonest name is "Isua Supracrustal Belt", looking on google, google scholar and google books. I intend to move the page to that title, but I'll wait for comment. Mikenorton (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * About 11,900 results for "Isua Greenstone Belt" and about 8,990 results for "Isua Supracrustal Belt".  Volcano guy  21:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's best to use either Google Books or News Archive (which is unhelpful for this topic). On Books - ISB has 1,750, ICB 937. For comparison, on Scholar ISB has 2,050, ICB 1,190. Mikenorton (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Discovery of early life section should become a separate article
I suggest a new article for what's currently in the #Discovery of early life section - that discovery truly seems to be notable enough for a separate article on it. Once the new article has been created that section should probably shrinked to a rather short summary of the findings.

This article is on the Greenlandish greenstone belt and not about findings revealing info about the origin of life that happen to have been made there.

(I already suggested this on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates but didn't get any reply.)

--Fixuture (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isua Greenstone Belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514104020/http://www.the-conference.com/JConfAbs/4/140.html to http://www.the-conference.com/JConfAbs/4/140.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No stromatolites
Mike J. Zawaski, Nigel M. Kelly, Omero Felipe Orlandini, Claire I.O. Nichols, Abigail C. Allwood, Stephen J. Mojzsis (2020): Reappraisal of purported ca. 3.7 Ga stromatolites from the Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland) from detailed chemical and structural analysis. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 545, 116409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116409

convincingly show that the so-called "stromatolites" are instead granoblastic quartz + dolomite boudins.

Uwe Kolitsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)