Talk:Pre-collisional Himalaya

review from Lydia
Hi Perry, 1. You have evolutionary diagrams in Passive Margin Model, there are some small numbers on the diagrams showing 1,2,3,4... I am not sure what are they, maybe you can explain the diagrams more?

2. The style of the diagrams for the three models do not match, and also the sizes are not consistent. It is not big problem, but it cannot give readers a sense of integrity.

3. The content is good. Not only you introduce the models, but you also tell us the constraints of the model. The table comparing different models are clearly presented. Nice job!

Lydia yip (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviw from Tanya
Hi Perry:)! Here are some suggestions for your page:

1. In the subsection of "Tethyan Himalayan sequence", you have mentioned Carboniferous- Jurassic rifting in the last paragraph. In this part, you may use a diagram to show the separation of the Cimmerian Plate from Northern Indian as well as the opening of Tethys Ocean, in order to let readers understand the general picture of this event more easily. You may also add some sentences to briefly describe the effects to the above sub-units after this event.

2. In the subsection of "Sub-Himalayan Sequence", you may add a diagram or a map to show the location of this sequence; or you may replace the original diagram "Tectonostratigraphic Zones of Himalaya" with other one including this sequence as well as the Main Frontal Thrust. Since the Sub-Himalayan Sequence is also a part of the whole tectonostratigraphic zones of Himalaya, it is better to illustrate it in the diagram.

3. In the section of "Concepts", all the models are quite well-explained, except the Crystalline Axis Model. You may further elaborate on this part, like how this model is discredited or supported, so that readers can fully understand the differences of these four models.

Review from Christy
Hi Perry, here are some suggestions to your page;)

1. The diagram named "Tectonostratigraphic Zones of Himalaya" can be put at the beginning of the section "Tectonostratigraphic Zones of Himalaya" near the first paragraph, instead of in the subsection "The lesser Himalayan sequence". So readers can briefly understand the the location of the major units of Himalaya orogeny when you introduce them inthe first paragraph.

2. It is quite confused that the legends of the Himalaya units in the map "Tectonostratigraphic Zones of Himalaya" are different with those you introduced in your section. Readers may bot be able to relate the four major units with those in the map. You may create your own disgram with locations of the four units (Tethyan Himalayan Sequence,Greater Himalayan Crystalline Complex,Lesser Himalayan Sequence,Sub-Himalayan Sequence) or amend the current map.

3. The GIF "Evolution of the Carboniferous-extension model" is a bit too fast as there is quite a lot of information in it. You may slow down the time for each steps, or simply put the three steps in single long jpeg image.

4. You may provide more details about the the mineralogy of each major units. (if you have time haha)

Christy Christyyc (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review from Ron
Sup Perry,


 * 1) Does the Himalaya orogeny belongs to the Indian Shield? If yes, I think you can briefly mention the settings of Indian Shield.
 * 2) Citation can be added more frequently in the Concepts section when explaining different models.
 * 3) What is the point of adding a satellite image? Instead, I would recommend you to add a geological settings of Indian Shield image.

Cheers, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlau817 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Review from Roberta
Your page is perfect and I only got some minor suggestions for your page,


 * It will be clearer if you can circle the Himalayan part in your satelite image.
 * It would be better if you can describe the lithology and mineralogy of different sequence more detail, especially for the lesser himalayan sequence part.
 * I wonder if there is any time preference for these models, like some are proposed earlier than the others. If there is I think you can arrange the models in chronological order.

Roberta:D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertalau1228 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Review from Jenny
It's hard to think of suggestions, the followings are just minor comments:

1.	It may be fun to compare the evidence and methodology the models were developed based on, so to understand how different models were made.

2.	I bet there are still some observations not yet explained by the models you have listed, they could be the directions for future development.

3.	Is there a reason why the fourth model is not compared with the other three in the third figure?

Manngaa Jenny (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality rating
, I saw you asked about the C quality rating at WikiProject Geology. I wasn't the one who assigned the rating, but I'll try to answer your question. The requirements for B quality (the next step up, and the only higher step that doesn't entail a formal review process) are at Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria. I think this article passes most of the B quality criteria, with the exception of "6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way." You're writing about a technical subject, and it can be difficult to write about technical subjects in a way that is understandable to a general reader. You could very well argue about what level of technical language is "appropriately understandable" in this context; I'd certainly agree that this isn't a subject that can really be presented to a "general reader" with zero background in geology. Ultimately, the ratings are subjective, and people who rate articles tend to err on the side of low ratings rather than high. You shouldn't be concerned about a C rating; in Wikipedia terms, that means it's really fairly good. Just because it's rated C here doesn't mean you deserve a C grade for your work on this article as part of your geology course.

If you're really interested in improving the article for the sake of Wikipedia's rating, work on moving towards less technical language, and explaining technical language when it is unavoidable. Plantdrew (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave the rating for the article. The main reason it is not a B is as Plantdrew says, that the language is technical and will be difficult to understand for a high school graduate. In this case the grammar is not bad. Also I am not yet convinced that the article reasonably covers the topic. Perhaps there are some important aspect not mentioned, but to determine this we will need to check what people have written on the topic.  In the Geology project there is no A class.  You can see all the article classes here: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.  Beyond B class there is GA - good article, and the best is featured article, both of which need a formal assessment, which can take several months, and require a lot of work to improve everything there is on the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)