A fact from Tectonic evolution of the Barberton greenstone belt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Barberton greenstone belt contains tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite domes wrapped in mafic and ultramafic layers of rocks (illustrated)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tectonic evolution of the Barberton greenstone belt.

Wikipedia

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Tectonic evolution of the Barberton greenstone belt is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Really well-explained. Some suggestions..

1) Loving the first half of the intro paragraph, precise but accessible, but the latter half needs some tightening to match the greatness of the beginning. Not sure if Pilbara needs to be there, for example.

2) Dome and keel x-section figure: explain what the "???" unit is in the caption, or just crop it from the figure. Otherwise, an effective figure.

3) Maybe a sentence or two comparing the BGB to the other significant greenstone belts would be good, with focus on how their tectonic evolutions are similar/different.

Bkilli1 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alesha, I had a hard time coming up with three suggestions for your page but here they are...

1. Create a link between your text and pictures by mentioning the pictures in the text.

2. You say that greenstone belts are "metamorphic volcanic belts" but what is a volcanic belt?

3. When I read that the tectonic evolution of the BGB "has been a cause of much debate," it made me somewhat skeptical about the validity of this page.

-Tyler Elorriaga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelorr1 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1[edit]

I like the page, it is very descriptive. I'd like to see more pictures and you have to fix the references. Also, all of the links that are in red are pages that either don't exist or go under a different name so check on that. Maybe you could also think about how you've outlined the topic on the page, using subsections can be useful in trying to get your point across. Other than these minor exceptions its a good page and very well written.

This is a good looking page with a well planned out structure. Like stated above, maybe add another figure or image to break up some of the text. Text is very straight forward. One small note is the spacing between each section is not the same. Minor detail but something to look at. Also the last few references seem to be off a bit. I also had problems with mine so i cant help you on that.

Stephen osborne Sosbor6 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2[edit]

Maybe have a timeline of some sort, or a place that list the four deformation events mentioned, but closer together. Perhaps have what type of stresses they were, and what times they took place listed there. In order to fix your reference problem simply change the ^[1] later in your papers to ^[2]

Garrniel (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3[edit]

1) In the 'General Geology of the BGB section, be careful of run on sentences, or awkward sounding sentences. There are a couple parts where you could use a comma, etc.
2) When referring to ages, < and > are used a lot. I cant figure out why, but it confuses me. Maybe there is another way to express this?
3)Are there any photos available that show the actual region, versus just maps? I would like to see what this place looks like. (I doubt Wiki commons has them, but its worth a shot). Zandra619 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ REFERENCE
^ Cite error: The named reference REFERENCE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] REFERENCE

[REFERENCE-2] Cite error: The named reference REFERENCE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]