Talk:Eoarchean geology

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2017. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hong Kong/Regional Geology (Fall Semester 2017)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Expect reviews soon from User:Karaclc, User:Wlamwk (who have not edited for a week) and User:FieldsetJ (who has started on others). I will add some comments too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Jupiter

Hi Youknowwhoiwillbe.

Your page gives a detailed explanation of the tectonic models and formation of Eoarchean Geology, with good use of animation and diagrams.

Here are some suggestion:

1. The first thing is about Fig.4. The diagram's dark colour lines are immersed with the blue background. You may want to change the background colour so that all the lines on the diagram are visible.

2. In Fig.3, I do not understand why there is a gap between the red plume and the surrounding materials. Is it a empty space or mantle or other materials? You will need a more realistic diagram to show the model, as it is not possible to have the empty space around the plume. You may want to refer to some papers with geology diagrams of the models (and cite the source properly).

3. It may be better to use "Main Article" instead of "See Also" for section "Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt" and "Acasta Gneiss Complex".

A clear and realistic diagram is needed to make your page understandable to readers. Jupmira104 (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from dinohk

1. In your introduction you could go into a bit more detail, maybe just a sentence or two, on what the environment was like during the eoarchean.

2. You should try to avoid heavy use of jargon without any explanation or at least include links that explain what some of the terms mean. For example, this sentence: "The principle of plume-lid regime is gravitational overturns and the downward diapirism of the crust, followed by delamination to the lower mantle." This is basically incomprehensible to someone without any background in geology.

3. Would be helpful to include some significance of eoarchean geology to our overall understanding of geology or earth history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from karaclc

1. You may change Jack Hill zircon to zircon. I think not only the zircon in Jack Hill give evidence of the heat pipe earth. How about the zircon found in Greenland? You may also ad blue link of "zircon" because laymen may not know what is it actually.

2.I think it would be clearer if you can add some cross-section about Isua Greenstone Belt, Acasta Gneiss Complex and Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt.

3. You may also add 1.3 Other models because I think there are more than 2 models that can proposed by other scientists. However, their models may have less acceptance. You may briefly explain the model and why people have less support of these models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karaclc (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Jay

1.Please add more link within text, as the concepts of the tectonic models of your wiki page is advanced, and an average reader may not be able to understand these concepts. For example, there is a wiki page for diapir which an link could be added to your page.

2. The choice of colour for fig.4 may be better with a more 'visual-friendly' colour.

3. A world map with present locations of Eoarchean rocks highlighted can be added.

PS: there is a mistype in fig.2, the word 'mafic' is typed as 'magic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldsetJ (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme

You have about the right amount of examples. But I think there should be a lot more general summary sections. The general information should be separate to the model description. I have questions that may have answered: What was oxygen and other atmospheric composition then? Where was the moon? How much would the Earth tide be? What was the thermal gradient? What was the solar input and surface conditions like? What is the composition of crust then compared to the next period and now? What were the initial isotope ratio values for this time? Was there any water on the Earth then? Do zircons / xenoliths in younger rocks confirm the conditions? Are there any other moons or planets with similar crust to the proposed models?

There should also be an introductory paragraph to the tectonic models to say what they are and how we know the current situation does not apply.

I also think that the language is much too technical for our readers. So can you please use a simpler vocabulary, even if you have to expand the writing.

You could add a timeline as in Eoarchean so we can see quickly what time this is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Wlamwk

Hi Youknowwhoiwillbe:

1. It will be better to add more blue links in the main paragraphs as well, such as different rock types, processes, etc. so that the readers can refer to the exiting wiki pages when they do not understand the vocabularies.

2. You may add some photos showing the real rocks or bedrocks if possible in the section of “Eoarchean Formation”. This will help the readers to have a better idea of what the evidences are.

3. You may also consider using numbered point-form in describing or summarizing the “Model Mechanism”. This helps illustrate the mechanism in a more orderly way.

--Wlamwk (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Leonkh

I think the content is good and rich in information. There are few suggestions i can think of:

1. Talking about the Eoarchean Period, the reader may be unfamiliar with the geological time scale and do not know about when was Eoarchean, I think simple geological time scale can be added to give better ideas for readers

2. There are some concept that can be explained more as readers may not be familiar. For example at the part of "Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt and the adjacent TTG", You can add more explanation why low isotopic ratio of 142-Neodymium to 144-Neodymium of the zircon does not represent mafic host rock is archean because readers may not have a background knowledge of this.

3. More hyperlink can be added as there are quite a lot of vocabulary about rock types that may not be understood by readers without geology background like tonalite, granitic

23:21 20/11/2017

Feedback from Jupiter 20171121

Your page is informative with use of images and diagrams. There are just some minor suggestions. First of all, the diagram of Proto-plate tectonics in Isua area in Eoarchean is a bit odd with the white blank space on the left. Also, you may want to make the overview Map of Nuvvuagituq Greenstone Belt and its adjacent TTGs larger, as the words in the legend is unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from GeoJeremy

Thank you for your informative page:

Here are my suggestions: 1)I saw "Acosta Gneiss" and "Acasta Gneiss" in the same section under "Acasta Gneiss Complex". Would that be a possible error? 2)For the dome-and-keel diagram, more detailed caption is needed. Like what does the colours other than yellow represents. Also, maybe consider pointing out the dome and keel structure in the diagram. 3)There is some inconsistency on chemical system and chemical ratio representation. Sometimes chemical symbols are used, while other times full spellings are used. GeoJeremy (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Xaviertang

Hi Youknowwhoiwillbe,

I have gained much knowledge about the evidence showing the Eoarchean environment from your page, but I have a few comments.

First, you may add a diagram for the "Proto-plate tectonic", so as to make a balance between the tectonic idea with the heat-pipe model. Otherwise, the readers would tend to accept the heat-pipe model which would be unfair to another model that is not yet proven right or wrong.

Second, it seems that there are your own works or interpretations for the vertical tectonics part under the Acasta Gneiss Complex, as no citation is there. If otherwise, you may add more citations for those sentences.

Third, you may consider plotting the geographical distribution of Eoarchean rock on a map, so that the readers could have more senses about where they are, but not simply knowing their existence.

Xaviertang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviertang (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Dinohk

Since you are talking only about three localities it would be useful to show on a global map where all three localities are located.

In your introduction it would be ideal to combine the first sentence of the first two paragraphs into your first sentence as you are essentially describing eoarchean geology twice right now with two partial explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic, mafic, no difference, or is there ....

What does this mean, "All 3 regions contains an abundance of felsic rocks igneous rocks, including tonalite, trondhjemite and granodiorite (TTG) series rocks,[1] with minor granulite to amphibolite facies gneiss complexes," nothing the source for the description of the Isua Complex does not say they are felsic rocks, and greenstone belts are not felsic. Later the article says, "Eoarchean geology is dominated by: (1) Mafic to ultramafic volcanics."

Which is it? --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]