Talk:Petermann Orogeny

Comments for Improving This Article
While a good start, this article could be improved in a number of ways. The first and most obvious issue is that there is not a single citation in the body of this article. There is quite a bit of factual information that likely came from somewhere, and it should carry a citation. Along the same lines, there is only a single source listed in the 'References' section. Though it does not say, I think that most or all of the information in the body of this page came from the cited 2001 Geological Society of London article. Assuming that is the case, this entry needs more sources incorporated in order to improve the quality and objectivity of the content.

The introduction here was possibly taken from an Earth and Environmental Sciences webpage for the University of Adelaide, which is listed under 'External Links' along with a broken link to the referenced article. If this is the case, it should be rewritten to avoid violating Wikipedia's plagiarism policy of copying material from one source without attribution. The broken external link to the source article should be fixed unless no publicly available copy exists, in which place it should be removed.

Another way this article could be improved is through the use of more intuitive visual aids. The one image included here is difficult for the uninitiated to interpret and could be supported by an illustration or rendering. A reference map could also be included, either of the landmass as it was then or as it is now or both. The article organization is clearly limited by the content's limited scope, and the themes of 'Dynamics,' 'Tectonics,' 'Economic Geology' and 'Popular Culture' are not particularly intuitive. They could, at the very least, be supported by a section explaining the lead-in process chronologically and its downstream consequences.

Major issues for this article are that it uses no citations, it probably draws from a single source and the introduction is possibly plagiarized from a university website. The article reads like the bullet points of a geology journal article, and needs to be written from a more broad perspective in order to explain this event/process in a manner that can be understood by more of Wikipedia's readership. Dtolson1 (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)