Talk:Superior Craton

A copyright problem
This article appeared to be copyvio. I removed it. Please see Contributor copyright investigations/20130908. Please don't restore any content unless you are sure it is free of copyright problems. bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaced a blank page resulting from the copyvio bit above with a short stub. Not much, but better than a blank page - should likely have been deleted back then. Will add to it when time permits. Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Alex
--Alexnlk (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is recommended that using million years/ billion years, instead of Ma/Ga, which helps readers for understanding easier.
 * 2) For the figure of "Pontiac Terrane", it is recommended to add legend for the directions of thrust faults.
 * 3) I think you can remove the authors name when you write articles as your citation has already helped you to indicate who mentioned the arguments.
 * 4) I really like your evolution diagrams in the section "Development" because each figures show in maps and cross-sections. This part is doing expectionally well since you help readers to engage to read what happens for the craton development, help the reader's understanding and suitable for earth science beginners.

=Message from Tommy=

1. I think it would be great to highlight which blocks were colliding. For example, you can paint the outline of Winnipeg River Terrane and North Caribou Terrane in bold during Uchian Orogeny.

2. The collision of WWT and WRT occurred at 2700 Ma However, the diagram shows they have assembled earlier.

3. In the diagram (before 2720 Ma), you use light green to represent NCT. But may I know why you separate the underneath section into 3 colours?

Makhkugeo (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Graeme
I suppose you are going to replace Superior Craton with your writing. It is a good idea as the existing article is very small. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Karen
--LkwkarenHKU (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I think it would be better to include a North arrow in each of the map you present.
 * 2) "Ga" and "Ma" are used alternatively here. It is better to use either Ga/Ma throughout the articles to prevent confusion especially for readers without geology background.
 * 3) Your illustrations are nice and clear. But, you might want to add the meanings of the abbreviations to the legend in order to make it useful in other wiki articles.

Comment from Helen
1. In your second illustration, I think it is a little bit messy that you put the ages on the map. It will be better if you can put the ages in the legend.

2. The colours of the first and second unit in your second illustration are very similar. You might want to change them so that the units are more recognizable.

3. Bullet symbols can be added in your See Also part.

HelenHYW (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Ken
1. "List of subprovinces and their dominating rocks": Make tables for different provinces separately would be better.

2. "Summary of the Western Superior Craton development": No need for hiding the table

3. You may insert more blue links.

4. Nice illustrations!

Kenwongtk (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Abraham
Improvement 1

The size of the legend of the major domains of the Superior Craton can be enlarged.

Improvement 2

The size arrangement of the three elements (legend, map view & cross-section) of the diagram "Before 2720 Ma, there were many pieces of microcontinent fragments which E-W trending conduit-like ocean crusts (with unknown extent) separates them" should be reconsidered.

Improvement 3

Some grammar mistakes, such as "the faults in the remaining southern part possess an east-west direction."

Well done

clear table showing the lithology. --AMLSIU (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)