Nice job taking on a giant topic, well put together. I would consider using some technical terms in your descriptions for erosive agents, such as chemical weathering for water and physical weathering for wind, in conjunction with the terms you used so that all can understand. You have a lot of good sources, but I would try to sprinkle citations throughout the paragraphs to strengthen the arguments instead of citing your source at the end of the section. Also I would consider moving your erosion picture to the top of the page for a visual grab to visitors or using a different one there if you think that might throw off the formatting of the rest of the page. Overall it is hard to find much to suggest to you, I really like the page.

Adam TurnerAturn4000 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adam about you doing a good job on such a broad topic. The sections are easy to read and comprehend and organization of sections seems to flow very well. Looking forward to seeing what you add in the Erosional effects on structural evolution section. Also as Adam said, maybe move up the first image. Everyone loves pictures.

Stephen Osborne Sosbor6 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would move he pretty picture towards to top, as previously suggested. I would also change the places where you have things listed in sentences as (1) and (2), by either writing it in a different way to make the numbers not necessary or by have the numbered items listed below.

Garrniel (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Reviews[edit]

1) Be careful with sentence structure. For example: "While tectonic uplift in any case will lead to some form of increased elevation, thus higher rates of erosion, a primary focus is set on isostatic uplift as it provides a fundamental connection between the causes and effects of erosional-tectonic interactions" needs to be edited. Maybe "and" before "thus"?
2) I would like to see a picture/diagram showing isostatic uplift. For someone researching this topic, being able to see how it works would be very helpful.
3)Everything else looks pretty good to me. I like the organization.
Zandra619 (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is especially strong and the writing tone is good and not too technical. Some suggestions..

1) define "orogen" in the text and/or wikilink it to orogeny

2) size of figures. box diagram seems too big compared to some of the pictures. Maybe make box diagram text bigger, shrink its overall size, and make some of the photos bigger.

3) Can you embed the video within the page?

4) Under "erosional processes" section, you mention that "deep fluvial incision has the highest tectonic implications" and it would be nice to explain clearly *why* this is the case

Bkilli1 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morabiac (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Andrew, this page is very well thought out and is well written. If you can find a picture of a craton, or perhaps a world view showing where cratons are? I know I had a hard time finding images on wiki commons so you might have run into the same problem? Very minute, but you do have a few minor grammar issues. watch how you structure sentences, sometimes simple is better. For relevance, include why a distinction between tectonic vs erosional influence is important? Is it important?[reply]