User talk:CinColon/Tectonics of the Tian Shan

TROUBLE
For some reason when I try to insert my general tectonic map the image that ends up showing is this weird image of an engine or something (check it out on the right) thumb|TianShan WikipediaCommons doesn't let me upload the image again, even with a different name, because it recognizes that it has the same contents as an already uploaded image. And there's no way to delete the images I've already uploaded. I've been trying to figure this out and I'm just about ready to give up so my solution is a link to my image page.
 * I renamed your file to File:TianShan Tectonic Map.jpg as there was already a file with the same name on English Wikipedia blocking the view of your upload. And I reinserted the thumbnail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Logan's Comments
Cindy, your page seems almost complete. I like how organized it is and how smoothly I can read through the article. Your illustrations are simple yet affective and add to my general understanding of your field area.

With that said, as with every first draft of anything they are not perfect and there are minor hick-ups along the way. As I read through your page I come across words that I vaguely know because I am a geologist, but if I wasn't I would not know what they mean. I would advise you to bracket-link many more geologic words. The linking of scientific words/topics will only help the reader to expand their understanding of your page through the ability to quickly and easily look up topics they don't know. There are a few spelling/grammatical errors but I'm sure you will find them and fix them with no problems. Keep up the good work!

John
I thought it was good. Some of it, however, gets very detailed and dense and without some sort of supplementary material I found it hard to follow and visualize. There are some simple grammatical things (margin margin, The The), but also a clause or two that seemed out of place (…folds are gentle, long-wavelength structures/Crustal shortening…Tien Shan). What I could really use to get my head around it would be a map that has all the names on it that you use in the article, blocks and towns and such. Maybe im just tired. -John

Sean
Everything seems to be cited very well and I really like the figures. It would be nice if the reader had a way of knowing where some of the places you were talking about were (like Urumqi, Kuitun, Tarim, etc. for example). Other than that, each section was explained very well and in great detail. I don't see many minor errors like grammar, but there are some that I see. Overall, it's a pretty good draft. Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjense2 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For File:Regional Map.jpg you could have picked a more specific name! Also did you draw the map entirely yourself, or copy it from somewhere else?  If so this needs to be credited. (more comments will come after I come back tomorrow). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Include more inter Wikipedia links to other topics, eg geological periods and other words you could expect to be explained in a geological dictionary. The link should be on the first occurrence of the word.  But you can include it again in a later section if it helps.  Do not be afraid to use a red link to a topic that should be there eg GPS velocity field.
 * For headings, use the double == not the single = headers: ==GPS velocity field== to have consistent style with other pages on Wikipedia. Only the first letter of section headings should have a capital letter.
 * For references instead of "et. al." you can include the other names. Also please include a volume and issue.  If you can find it a doi or URL link to an online article is good.  Please expand abbreviated journal names like "Geol. Soc. Am. Bull."
 * For units you should separate them from their number by a non breaking space, eg: 6 mm/yr
 * For the great earthquakes there should be some more information about historical ones possibly with links to articles on them.
 * File:TianShanAllen.jpg has the advantage that it can be reproduced in back and white, however it does not make use of colour. Also there is no legend, and the writing is too small to see in the thumbnail.
 * File:TianShanAerial.jpg is is not clear that this is suitable for Wikipedia as it states can be used for educational or informational purposes, but also says "Chelys material is not protected by copyright unless noted" which may not be a true statement. The making of derivatives is unclear.  You also said "own work" and this is clearly not the case.

More comments

 * There has been a great response to making red links. However they should not be there if you can fix up spelling mistakes.  Also a blue link to a wrong topic is not helpful, like Detachment.  Instead you can pipe the link like this: detachment giving detachment.  If a word has more than one meaning there may be a disambiguation page such as Detachment (disambiguation).
 * Where you say elastic strain do you really mean stress? As it is only strain once relieved.  Perhaps these articles may be useful for links: Deformation (mechanics) Shear stress Stress (mechanics) which covers the theory pretty well.
 * I still think we need an article on GPS velocity field. Linking to velocity field is not so helpful!
 * Triangular prism may be better than wedge-shaped, but perhaps we need an article on the tectonic structure! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you have several links to the same word in a section we only need the first one. And for suture you really want to have Suture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)