User talk:Geologyanli

Comments From David
Hi, this is David from class, I'll make my comments on your article here by section.

I think you need to move the section "Provenance (Geology)" and use it as the title of the page above your introductory paragraph (Our Earth is not...).

Section 1 - Introduction

The third sentence in this section could be reworded for clarity, the order of the definition of the purpose of provenance studies is a bit muddled.

Overall, you made a great article! You picked a great topic and did an excellent job of explaining what Provenance is, how it's used, and it's capabilities and limitations. You made great use of pictures and figures, and there's not much I could improve on. Finish off those sections that you haven't done yet and I'd say you're good to go!

Suggestions from Chang
First section, Very good description of provenance

Second section, good description of the sedimentary mechanism.

In the transportation and accumulation of detritus part, how about carbonate? How does carbonate match with these mechanism?

Good description of Provenance method's development.

The classification of the method is a little redundant. I suggest you should be get rid of some of them and classify them into the three categories. It should be easy to understand and remember.

It will be better to talk more about the methods and what previous research they have been used to. Like XRF was used to measure the major elements in marine sediment and could show 30 different elements content.

Two last sections need to be finished. The last one could be expanded more, not only hydrocarbon research there should be more area which provenance like paleoceanography and paleoclimate research.

Overall I think it is a very good review page for provenance. It covers most of part this methods and its development. Some parts need to be finished. More figures for each methods are needed.

-Chang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.129.157 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chang21liu (talk • contribs)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits from Don
Intro: Well written, I like the book analogy. However it lacks the statement "Provenance is _______" after reading the first paragraph, I have an idea of what it is and what it covers, but the first line should state what provenance is very clearly and explicitly. Maybe fuse the "intro" section with the first paragraph, and move the picture up to precede the navigation panel.

Consider grouping "source of detritus", "transport of detritus" etc. into a larger section "Sediment Path" or something like that.

Same for "development of provenance methods" and "provenance method"

Most of your pictures are too small to be useful, can you make them larger?

Content-wise, this article is excellent, your biggest fixes are formatting issues

Drhood2938 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions about your article
Hi Geologyanli, reading the above messages, it seems like you're part on an education program course on geology! You're doing great so far, and I would like to give some input as an editor outside of your class. I personally think that your sections on detritus should be merged into a single section, like some of the people above. Other than that, you're doing a great job. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) 09:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)