User talk:Mkerkovius/sandbox

Peer review from Cole: The page is structured well, with a good overview at the start and good, clear division of topics with the headers used. The section on the Sierra Nevada Mountains would make more sense if the order of belts were flipped (east, central, west rather than the opposite) since this would place the events of their formation in chronological order. This would match the order you listed the events in the introduction as well (Andean type transitioning to Cordilleran type).

The content of the article is good; the topics you introduced are covered well and the sections are all balanced in terms of the amount of content covered. The one exception might be the “order of events” section, which you could expand on a bit - adding dates to the events that occurred etc. (although this is somewhat covered in the following section regarding each specific mountain belt). In the section for the central belt you reference the western belt several times – is it supposed to be central? Might be helpful to add more information in the central belt section describing the two zones (why is a portion of it igneous and a portion sedimentary?), although perhaps only if it's within the scope of the orogeny. There could also be a section distinguishing the Nevadan orogeny from others since you made comparison in the introduction - e.g. why was this orogeny so rapid?

Good use of figures to illustrate the processes involved in the orogeny. I think it would also help to include a map of the region outlining the 3 mountain belts in the Sierra Nevada & the Klamath to provide some context.

The writing style of the article is also good – easy to follow with minimum technical jargon. Lots of the technical terms seem to be linked to their respective Wiki articles as well which helps with explanation/clarification. You could add some more links to other terms for easy access (e.g. types of rocks - there are lots mentioned)

Minor comments: -the second sentence seems unnecessary and doesn’t really add anything -The use of “ma” in the first sentence (and throughout the article) isn’t explained so you should note what it means -The last sentence of intro is redundant (“in comparison with” & “compared to” in the same sentence) -Some minor grammar & spelling errors but this just needs a proofread to be resolved Coalnoise (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Micheal

Overall, your paper reads well and is informative. The use of diagrams and wikilinks is well thought out and adds valuable information to your page. The addition of photos would help readers visualize the area and processes you’re writing about.

→Good:

Good use of wikilinks! The links you provided in your page were thoughtful, and will be very helpful to someone with less understanding of geological processes/timelines/lingo. I like the idea of having an “order of events” section – my paper could use that too! I think it helps the reader organize things before diving into the main part of the page. The diagrams add a lot to your page, they are simple enough to understand the mechanisms quickly without oversimplifying and leaving things out.

→Needs improvement:

The addition of a few photographs of the area, or even just a Google Earth screen shot would give readers some perspective on the area you’re talking about – for example showing how the Seirra Nevada Mountains relate to the Klamath mountains. Maybe a photo at the top of the page of some typical mountains formed by the orogeny? Grammar and editing could use some improvement. A quick proofread is probably all that is needed, as there are just a few minor discrepancies (you mention the a western belt a few times throughout your central belt section). Although this is a relatively easy fix, it would add a lot to the readability of the paper.

Haywalsh (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)