User:Cardwellma/Blue Ridge Ophiolite/SCD1999 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cardwellma


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cardwellma/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

I think this section is great- you made reference to what the unit is, when it formed, and the fact that it was metamorphosed.

Mineralogy

I thought this section was well written- this may be picky, or there may not be sources that can answer this, but how common are the altered vs. unaltered parts of the rock? If you’re in the field, which part are you more likely to come into contact with? This might also be helpful, if you can find a source to answer this. If there is a solid answer, I feel like that could be added either to this section or the next one.

Attributes

In this section, maybe one or two more sources could be used to expand on the information given. For example, you mentioned the specific texture included in the unaltered part of the unit, but what is the texture like in the altered part? You mentioned that the crystals are visible, but is it possible to expand on that? How big are the visible crystals, can you describe the texture any further? Similarly, are there any trace/rare minerals found in the altered part of the rock, like the ones mentioned in the unaltered part (where you said that you can see garnet or plagioclase in rare cases)? Also, I would maybe rename this section (possibly to "texture," or something along those lines).

Location

I feel like maybe some more information on other surrounding units could be helpful (besides that ones that have pods of the unit itself). You mentioned the units that include parts of the Blue Ridge Ophiolite, but what other surrounding units that do not include parts of this formation?

Formation

I personally think that adding numbers to more of the geologic times could be helpful (although that may be a matter of opinion)- the average Wikipedia reader may not have an understanding of when geologic time periods were, so adding numbers may be helpful for people who don't necessarily have that background. You already did a good job of that in including the numerical age of the oldest samples, but adding more context to things like "Middle Ordovician deformation" may be helpful to non-geologists reading the article.

Images

For the images, maybe adding something about what you can see in the hand samples, thin sections, ect. could add to the article. For example, maybe pointing out the visible mineralogy (such as olivine, in this case) in the hand sample or thin section photos would be useful.

Citations

I think you did a really nice job of including citations, but for the sections where more information may be useful, I think one or two more citations couldn't hurt (unless the citations that you already used can answer those questions!).The citations seem correctly formatted.

Overall

I feel like adding at least one more section to the article could be helpful to give a fuller understanding of the unit. For example, maybe adding a "structure" section could be helpful, or something about the unit's relation to surrounding units (and maybe how this relates to the history of the units...do any formations intrude into the Blue Ridge Ophiolite? When did this happen? This could also give a more detailed insight into the history of the unit after its metamorphism). You could even work in the part where you mentioned that the deformation in the Middle Ordovician also impacted other metamorphic suites- what other metamorphic suites, specifically? Overall, though, I really like the tone and language you used, and I think the sections are well-organized. I recognize that a lot of my suggestions are either very picky or a matter of opinion, and as a whole I think this article is a great start! I hope you found my comments to be helpful.