User talk:Haywalsh/sandbox

Peer Review by Reid -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidMerrill (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview - Maybe just move this section above and have it as the lead paragraph, similar to other Wiki articles. An "overview" serves the same purpose as the lead paragraph. It might also be good to include average elevations, and the height of the tallest peak in the range. Random trivia like that is nice to include and I think

grammar: "...are located in the in East-central..."

Geologic Setting - If you're discussing the geologic setting it may be useful to describe the Wernecke mountain range's relation to major geologic provinces like the Slave/Rae/Hearne if there is in fact any relation. It is part of the Rae(?), is it bounded to the east by the Slave(?) etc.

You write that the extensional and deformational events interspersed with magmatism is "ultimately responsible for creating the uplifted landscape...", how is extension responsible for uplift? Does it work in concert with asthenosphere flow beneath the local lithosphere? Was there convergence? I don't understand.

Crystalline Basement - Since there are no exposed basement rocks, is this a thin-skinned orogen?

You've left a citation (torkelsonen 2005) in

Supracrustal Deposits - It might be helpful to include a super brief paragraph to introduce the various groups and supergroups prior to discussing them in depth.

Wernicke Supergroup - What are the relative orientations of the Fairchild vs Quartet vs Gillespie Lake. It would seem that the Fairchild is the deepest, as it sits on top of the basement, but which is on-top of the Fairchild group etc?

Pinguicla Group - How thick is it, is it laterally continuous?

Hematite Creek Group - What is it? You mention a shallow ocean environment facies, but can you be more specific? How thick is it, is it laterally continuous?

Windermere Supergraoup - Again, thickness might be a good thing to include.

Racklan Orogeny - This orogeny compressed Laurentia you mention, but what is the compressing agent? Did Laurentia collide with another continent/craton? I found what might be a useful resource which I don't think you've used/cited: Laughton, J. R., Thorkelson, D. J., Brideau, M., Hunt, J. A., & Marshall, D. D. (2005). Early Proterozoic orogeny and exhumation of Wernecke Supergroup revealed by vent facies of Wernecke Breccia, Yukon, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 42(6), 1033-1044. doi:10.1139/e04-085

Corn Creek Orogeny - No notes

Laramide Orogeny - No notes

Overall A lot of the questions I had when reading sections of your article were answered in later sections. Reorganizing the Supracrustal Deposits and Orogenies into chronological order I think would make this easier to read (i.e. Wernecke > Racklan > Hematite Creek > Corn Creek > Windermere > Laramide). Also you've included a diagram of the geologic time scale, but you only mention the specific ages of events a couple times. If you can better link the timing of events, either by reorganizing your headings like I suggested or by more thoroughly discussing the timing deposition/erosion/extension/etc, the geologic time scale would be more useful.

You mention how the area is rich in mineral deposits and gold in the overview, but don't discuss these deposits in relation to the geology of the region. I think it would be good to include a section on where the gold deposits are found - in the Wernicke, or in veins cross-cutting an orogen? Why is it such a resource rich province?

You've cited your sources after the end of sentences, I think these citations should come before the end of the sentence(?). I could be wrong.

I found your article easy to read and informative on the whole. Aside from addressing the chronological order of events, small grammar and citation errors can be easily fixed with a thorough proof read.

ReidMerrill (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) ReidMerrill (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Good job Hayley! Your writing is very concise and easy to understand. The structure is straightforward and logical. Adding images of the different orogenies would go a long way, but I understand that it is hard to recreate without copyrighting.

I tried to follow the peer review guidelines that wikipedia sets out for us, so here it is.

In general, the best Wikipedia articles have five elements:

A lead section that is easy to understand:

It would probably be useful to lead with the overview instead of the table of contents. I also had problems trying to rearrange this but I have not figured it out yet. If I do I will let you know The overview is concise which is good. It would seem that you are highlighting the economic importance of this area, but your article does not touch on this topic. Perhaps you could relate mineralization to a certain sequence of deposits? Maybe it is out of the scope of your topic, but I think you should somehow mention the tectonic history briefly.

A clear structure:

The structure is very clear and it is obvious that it is in chronological order. Good Job! I think that your article would really benefit from including more dates to make it easier to relate the sequences found in your mountain range with other nearby sequences, so that it is easier to have a large scale picture of what's going on.

Balanced coverage

Pretty good overall, although I think that a little more attention could be paid to the three orogenies. The geology of the region is covered appropriately.

Neutral content:

The content is neutral as far as I can tell.

Reliable sources:

Your sources seem to be reliable and come from a variety of sources. Sources 5 and 6 seemed to be heavily relied upon, and possibly some bias' exist because of it, but none that I can see. There are a few spots where you do not have any references e.g "seismic imagery shows Racklan orogeny to be probably thin skinned, although a lack of basement exposure means this cannot be confirmed." Generally, there should be a citation after every sentence. I could be wrong, but it seems like you summarize 3 or 4 sentences from the same author, but you will only cite it once at the very end. e.g "At least three cycles of basin formation and extension resulted in up to 22 kilometers of sediments deposited in the Yukon form the early Proterozoic through to the Paleozoic eras. Extension and crustal thinning associated with basin development in the Yukon could indicate separation of Laurentia from another continental crust to the west, thought to be ancient Australia. The rifting of cratons produced intracratonic basins and passive margin.[3][4]. "

Some extra notes:

Crystalline Basement

If possible you should put a link to  "Fort Simpson terrane"

Pinguicla Group

This section is very informative and easy to understand. It would be very helpful to include some dates even if they are approximate. For example you wrote "Deposition of these sediments indicates a period of rifting and extension in the area, as supported by the incidence of the Hart River basalt sills around the same time period.[6]" How long was this period of rifting and extension? How old are the Hart River Basalts? etc..

'Hematite Creek Group

You probably should just cite this information and leave out the authors last name e.g"Hematite Creek basin formation has been tentatively attributed to the Grenville orogeny of approximately the same time period by Thorklelson,". Again dates would be helpful in understanding the timing of this sequence compared to the rest of them.

Windermere Supergroup

You gave a date for this supergroup which is helpful. What are "clastic-carbonate grand cycles"? If possible maybe you could link this to another existing page that might explain them. If not maybe you could briefly explain them.

Racklan Orogeny

This sentence is hard to understand and read: "The orogeny compressed northwestern Laurentia and characterized by three phases of deformation recorded in penetrative foliation and superposed crenulations and kink bands.". Possibly split it up or rewrite it? "Seismic imagery shows Racklan orogeny to be probably thin skinned, although a lack of basement exposure means this cannot be confirmed." Remove probably from this sentence (Ryleymac (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryleymac (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)