User talk:Daniel Tamas/sandbox

Peer Review By: Ben

The topic and content of the page is interesting and in depth. However, I think the structure of the page could be improved to make it easier to follow. The study areas chosen are interesting and the data conveyed seems to be reliable and accurate. Additionally, I really liked the use of your figures to explain tectonic aneurysms. It might be useful to explain the controversy of the St. Elias location in more depth and further convey the different opinions on whether the system is a tectonic aneurysm or not.

As stated before, I think the structure of the page could be improved. I think it would help to have your overarching title of "Tectonic Aneurysms" at the very start of your page, using the tab at the top of the editing section and selecting the "page title" option. This will place the title at the very beginning and also place it at the beginning of the table of contents. I like the section on your location descriptions, it might improve the overall flow of the page to put this section before the "field work in proposed regions" section. Furthermore, this section seems to convey the main dating techniques that were used to date cooling and exhumation rates, so a different title of "dating techniques" or "data collection methods" or something along those lines might be helpful.

You have a proper list of sources at the bottom of the page, but you haven't cited them within the text. Obviously, this project involves using data and information from other people work, so it needs to be cited within the text. Wikipedia makes it fairly easy to do this. To cite within your text just click the cite tab in the edit window and then click the re-use tab and click the appropriate source in the list. This gives the text a superscript number in brackets that can be clicked and the source can be viewed. In addition, it might be helpful to link certain terms on your page to other wikipedia pages to make it easier for readers to understand your topic by quickly being able to be directed to another page for clarification. This can be done by clicking the link tab in the editing window where you can search for a wikipedia page and a link will be created. Benbouchard (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Mike

General:

For the most part this article is written in a way that makes it understandable but it does need some rearranging as noted later on in this review. There appear to be good references but they need to be cited in text. Also putting links to the technical jargon (to other Wikipedia pages, if they exist) would greatly help when trying to clarify their meanings. Reading through a few times would help to remove spelling and grammar mistakes that are present.

Introduction Paragraph:

I think this paragraph would be better put into context if the first sentence just bluntly describes what a tectonic aneurysm is (extreme uplift in a small area). A specific example of where tectonic aneurysms can occur would also be helpful here.

Deformation Mechanisms:

When describing the erosion power, change "meter" to "square meter". The second sentence in the second paragraph under this heading starts by saying "ductile minerals" and later on mentions "ductile rocks", it would be a good idea to change "ductile minerals" to "ductile rocks" to help with consistency. The latter half of the second paragraph under this heading could also use some refinement on the wording, it is a bit hard to follow.

Field Work in Proposed Regions: Various methods that were used to date rocks are mentioned here but at what locality were these used at? One sentence in the middle of this paragraph starts with "Shallow exhumation rates", did you mean "slow exhumation rates"? It may make more sense to put this section at the end of the article, after the "Locations" segment.

Nanga Parbat-Haramosh Tectonic Aneurysm:

Excellent information in this section although the wording could use some reworking to make it more readable, especially the second sentence.

Namche Barwa-Gyala Peri:

Same as above section, good information present.

Saint Elias:

This section also contains good information but it does have many spelling mistakes that could be easily fixed by a few read throughs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkerkovius (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)