Talk:Okavango Dyke Swarm

Review from Tanya
Hi Christy:)! Here are some suggestions for your page:

1. In the section of "Geological information", you have mentioned that Okavango Dyke Swarm overlap with Lebombo and Save-Limpopo Dyke Swarm at Karoo Triple junction. In this part, you may use table to show any linkage or relationship between these three swarms, like their similarities or differences in mineralogy or tectnoic setting. It is easier for readers to comprehend the whole picture at the Karoo Triple junction.

2. In the section of "Tectonic setting", you have mentioned there are different hypothesis for the origin of Okavango Dyke Swarm and Karoo Triple Junction. You may add bullet points or a brief description to show clearly what are the different hypotheseis models. Then you may also indicate which model(s) is/are more well-developed that you are going to explain in detail in the following paragraphs.

3. You may link the key phrases on your article to other wikipedia pages throughout your whole page as I have noticed that in some paragraphs you missed some links that you did in other paragraphs. It can help make your whole page look more uniform.

Review from Jennifer
Hi Christy!:^D Here are the suggestions:
 * 1) It would be better to list out the other hypothesis in one or two sentences mentioned in the introduction of Tectonic setting "There are different hypothesis developed to account for the origin of the Okavango Dyke Swarm as well as the Karoo Triple Junction." Even though you have another sub-section to describe different hypothesises, briefly mentioned them in the introduction of the section helps readers to follow your ideas.
 * 2) Although the page mentions "impact to the mantle convection (and temperature)" in Dyking process and Passive melting of Gondwana supercontinent, there is no further explanation in what sense is the mantle convection influenced. I would suggest explaining in more details on how or to what extent does the convection being affected.
 * 3) The mantle plume figure can be more realistic (or make another one, your 3D figure looks way better). Brief description can be included under the Mantle Plume figure.
 * 4) Add in the direction (i.e. E,S,W,N) in the Evolution of Okavango dyke swarm figure.
 * 5) Missing sources for some of the content (e.g. Dyking process).

I love the 3D figure you made, it helps me to understand the dyking process clearly. I can follow your content easily and they are very imformative. :^) Jjyyu8 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Review from Wayne
Hi Christy! Here are some comments to improve your wiki page:


 * 1) As a lot of ancient plates were involved in your page, better hyperlink them so that readers can easily get the location even though you are not going to explain those terms in detail. (eg: Botswana, tholeiites, Lebombo, Karoo, Limpopo, Olifants River Dyke, Okavango etc.)
 * 2) Should explain more on why adding the diagram of mantle plume.(Add description underneath or edit the diagram) How this plume related to the formation of the Okavango Dyke Swarm.
 * 3) I think the another hypothesis of passive melting of Gondawa continent lack evidences. Might be cite some evidences that related to kavango Dyke Swarm might help support the idea.
 * 4) The "Significant" part can be placed after the introduction, above the geological background part, instead of the last part. This may help grab readers attention on why you are interested in this topic.
 * 5) The map "Main dyke swarms in the Karoo triple junction." that Okavango Dyke is overlapping the other two dykes. does't it mean Okavango Dyke is the youngest dyke swarm among the area? It will be appreciated if you can show the relative age or sequence of events of when Okavango form.

Overall it is interesting to argue the origin of the dyke swarm. =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consequencewayne (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Review on minor issues - links
Only a couple of bits of feedback for you - I've not read and understood all the geology of the article other people will no doubt be able to help with that more.

One thing I'm looking at are links - you have for instance linked to dyke swarm and that already links to dike (geology) so you probably can avoid linking to dyke which btw doesn't go direct to dike (geology) it goes to the disambiguation page - if you want you could use this format dyke to achieve that result.

The other question is overlinking - if you read the page not everything needs to be a link - if it is unclear then fine, but if for example mantle plumes are mentioned at this point in the page, you don't need to link to mantle plumes again here because it is still in the head from earlier if you didn't know it as you read through you would have clicked and checked it out, come back and carried on.

It's not a major issue, (but this affects lithosphere in your article, you mention it several times and only link it at the end) it's generally cleaner to read if the links are used at the first instance on the page you bring in a new concept (unless you would end up with concurrent links) and not linked again further down (unless it is a massive article).

words that could be linked (as they are a bit technical for the non geologist) are magmatism kinematic sills tholeiitestrike-slip craton basement rocks - and then possibly not for the geology - but to link to interesting articles you might link to the limpopo river save river lebombo river olifants river etc (note that some of these are bad links to disambiguation pages etc and so they would need tidying up too).

you also have linked jurrassic but it only has one R so that's a broken link

I don't think dyking event is standard usage - I'd have thought something more like dike emplacement might be suitable.

similarly this below doesn't tie together perfectly plural and singular "A dyke can be formed in a single earthquake. Hence in a series of earthquake, a whole swarm of dyke can be formed by a great number of similar dykes."

perhaps you mean the following ? Hence in a series of earthquakes, a whole swarm of similar dykes can be formed.

I hope that has been vaguely useful for you - the article itself is looking good, but if it went live now and I stumbled across it those are the tweaks I'd make as I was reading it. EdwardLane (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Review from Roberta
Your page is perfect! here are some minor suggestions:
 * Add a heading for your summary table, it would be more organised and better to follow
 * In the part " Passive melting of Gondwana supercontinent, you may add the subduction zone in the diagram, it would be more clear to understand the obstacle on the magma convection besides small temperature difference.
 * A geological map can be added to explain the geology of the study area.

Roberta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertalau1228 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Review from Ron
1. Regarding the table in the section of Mineralogy of Okavango Dyke Swarm: - What is the name of the table? - You may further elaborate the difference between the mineralogy of different swarms (be more precise) - dyke swarm? Dyke Swarm? The use of capital letters is not consistent.

2. More description can be put in the diagram you showed in the mantle plume hypothesis section.

3. Among all hypothesis, which one is the most convincing? You may indicate the reason in one or few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlau817 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Review from Perry
The following are suggestions to your page: 11lawpt1 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be aware of grammatical errors. Eg "Stretching of lithosphere is found from 150 km to 50 km depth from the Karoo Large Igneous Province, which favours 'a' upwelling plume head."
 * In the section "Geological information" you may want to start with "Mineralogy of Okavango Dyke Swarm" since this is the main subject of your page.
 * To improve on neutrality, you have added both strengths and weaknesses in the section "Argument on mantle plume hypothesis" however, it seems that for the other two hypotheses, no weaknesses are mentions. Are there really no counter-evidences for those?
 * I think you can rename "Argument on mantle plume hypothesis" to simply "Mantle plume hypothesis", since for the other hypotheses you did not use the term "argument on".