Talk:North China Craton

Copyvio
the "Western Block" section was cut and paste from "Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton: key issues revisited". In fact the whole article was cut and paste by user:Xihuzhaiyue. I am restoring the very first version. `'Míkka 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Permian China connected to Gondwana ?
Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in China, seemingly implying that the north & south China terranes were then still connected to Gondwana:
 * http://s10.postimage.org/bv1m3h0p5/Reptile_expansion.png

66.235.38.214 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
Requested move of North China Craton reason=Individual named shields and cratons are proper nouns, specific geographical entities and therefore it is appropriate to capitalise both the specific and generic elements of the article title - there is presently inconsistency within WP. Discussed recently (no dissent) at WikiProject geology Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopersona (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 May 2013


 * Moved. Why the nowiki bit? Modified above :) Vsmith (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and 'nowiki'? - an error! cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Jupiter 20171120
Hi Celiayangyy.

First of all, it is good to see the simple diagram showing the Tectonic elements in China with the North China Craton highlighted, and a corresponding satellite image of China. It is an effective way to show the location and concept of North China Craton. I really like the images and diagrams on your page, with colouring consistence (pink, green and purple). It is clear for the readers to follow in both map views and cross sections throughout the page.

You provided very detailed description and evolution of North China Craton. It is good to have details to accurately describe the geology. However, those technical details and terms may discourage effective communication on a wiki page, which most of the readers are non-experts in this field. Use simple and easy words and suitable generalization of some technical parts may be a way to improve that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Leonkh
Good use of tables, and evolution diagrams and lot of references.

Here are some suggestions

1. Some figures or map can be modified a bit. For example, in the diagram showing super-continent and location of North China Craton, The north arrow should be added and the map projection used (outline of the globe should be indicated)

2. More hyperlink can be added on some technical terms of rocks term like 'xenoliths', 'Paleoproterozoic' and 'Archean'. 'supercontinent' in the article which appear few times but readers may not have idea what does it mean

3. The Diagrams can be bigger so the reader can see them more easily and more explanation of the diagrams can be added

00:56 21/11/2017

Review by Youknowwhoiwillbe
1. I think the part of "tectonic setting" can either be expanded or be the one-step-forward part of the introduction. as i think it is still on the intro level that unspecific enough to stay under the title of tectonic setting.

2.It is better to include a scale in the comparison of continent among Columbia

3.In the diagram "showing how the lithosphere can be thinned through folding", would you explain how the blue fragments came from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowwhoiwillbe (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from Xaviertang
Hi Celiayangyy, This page contains very updated research result and different models from different schools. It feels like a textbook for me! As I have also read some papers about this topic before, I find this page to be a good summary of current discovery and ideas. It is also good to separate main stream thoughts from the thoughts that are not well-accepted, so that it will be easier for the laymen to follow. I know that there are constraints that you can't put more pictures to the page, maybe because of copyright problem, e.g. the P-wave tomography by either Zhao D or M Santosh. But if there are possibilities, it will be good to attach those seismic graph here.

Regarding the craton destruction part, I have read a model from Zhao D (2004) about underplating before. His idea is based on P-wave tomography, saying that, because of stagnant slab accumulated at the bottom of the upper mantle, the release of water have lowered the melting temperature of magma, which have led to wide spread of volcanism in the Mt Changbai area in the current era. This could probably act as supplementary information for that part.

Lastly, one minor thing, for the Mesozoic part about the minerals in the North China Craton, there are some typos that need conversion, e.g. "Thee" > "The", and some words that should be in capital letter are written in lower case form.

Xaviertang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviertang (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from Dinohk
It's good to see you have added a number of images, especially the ones highlighting the location of the craton, this really helps the readers to understand the material.

My main suggestion would be to work on simplifying some of the terminology as it your page is currently quite technical. It would also help to provide links or explanations earlier. For example you refer to orogenic belts quite often but there's no explanation of what orogeny is and no link until halfway into the page when you've already brought up multiple orogenic belts. It would be best to explain what orogeny is or provide a link right at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)