Talk:Western Block of the North China Craton

Message from Karen

1. Regarding the second paragraph of introduction, I feel a bit difficult in following the name of cities (e.g. Sanyitang & Xiwulanbulang)
2. The illustrations are simple and easy to understand. I appreciate that you put names of cities on geology maps (Fig.3) which can relate more to readers without geology background.
3. Figure 2 delivers the major tectonic units of the craton, but I think it can improve a bit by putting some cities for geographical referencing. (just like Fig.3)
4. The table is a good summary of key concepts of the section. However, I would suggest using either Ga/ Ma for "time of rock formation". Conversion between Ga and Ma might be a bit confusing for beginners.

Thank you for your effort. I enjoyed reading your wiki page as well as your lovely illustrations :) The whole page is well-organised, the flow is smooth and easily followed. --LkwkarenHKU (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Message from Alex

1. Some figures lack the legend: e.g. figure 4a and 4b, indicate the lithologies and structures for each color and symbols.
2. The summary table is concise and clear, probably you can put geological periods and time of rock formation into same columns.
3. The introduction can be reduced to keep concise.
4. Apart from the writing style of content, I really appreciated the illustrations of each figures since they are easier to read and understand for geology beginners. The readers can follow your ideas through your illustrations strictly.

--Alexnlk (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The content is very precise and simple, the figures are clear and they help the readers understand the concepts described in words.

• Can change the “xxx millions years ago” to “xxx Ma” so that there are fewer words in the content table (less crammed!)
• Are there any geological maps that can be added in the “geology” section? That way it is easier for the readers to visualise the area
• The “tectonic subdivision” section can be included in the “tectonic evolution of Precambrian basement” instead of separating them into two different sections when they are talking about the same models
• Any external links that can be added for further reading?

--JacqCLSin (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Message from Charles

1. The size of the introduction can be reduced to say 150-200 words so that it can be more precise and simple to beginners. 2. Instead of putting the information of the symbols in the caption, a legend can be made in the image so that the audience can grab the concepts more easily. 3. For each model, tables can be made to illustrate the order of the assembly over time from another perspective. 4. The images of the models are simple and easy to understand the different proposed tectonic evolution.--Charlespsml (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Message from Tommy

Hi Helen. Makhkugeo (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1. You summarizes the Kusky's model into five elements (3 units + 2 faults). However, it seems that your evolution diagram could not account for the origin of several features e.g Hengshan Plateau and two faults. And some features on the evolution diagram is not included in your summary. (e.g khondalite belt). So I think it would be great to make your summary consistent with the evolution diagram, just like the one you did for Zhao's model. Also, it would be great to use the same colour to represent certain feature. So we can easily compare the map and evolution diagram.

2. You present three models. Zhao's and Santosh's model focus on the amalgamation of the Western Block. However, it seems to me that the focus on Kusky's models is far beyond that. I guess it focuses on the interaction of WB with other blocks. So I think it would be great to add subdivision in "Tectonic evolution of Precambrian basement" section.

3. You said that 3 models generally agree on the presence of an orogenic belt. The description of the Khondalite Belt is really precise. However, the description of the other two belts is rather unclear.

Comments from Graeme

Hello, you have a lot of links, however you don't have to link every use of a technical term, but you just have to link the first time it occurs. eg we don't need two links to sandstone in the same paragraph. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment

1. Nice introduction, but it could be more concise, i.e. use less brackets. Change them into complete sentence if possible, e.g. from 250-160 Ma in the Neoproterozoic time. It would be easier to read.

2. It would be great of you could include a simple cross-section to show the stratigraphic relation between the sedimentary basin and other igneous rocks.

3. The evolution diagrams could be less artistic, e.g. leave out the smoke and multiple mantle plumes, or change them into simple lines, so as to emphasise the major components. Also, adding captions would be great. Hkgeo4869 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)