User talk:A.bre.clare./sandbox

Hongcheng Guo's review

Isua Greenstone Belt

Great section. The reader can get information like the location of the belt, how well and by what methods the belt has been studied, the difficulties in the studies of it, but I recommend a map view figure to show the belt.

Composition of the Hadean crust

Great section.

Lithologies

Great section as I think. No comments.

North and south regions

Good section to know the IGB deeper. I think it would be better if there is a figure attached since this section is about the divisions of the belt. Additionally, it's too short for a section as I see (but I cannot say that does not make sense because whether a section is good does not depends on the length, but effectiveness. However, in "aesthetics", it is a little bit short. I would recommend integrate this part with aother section).

Formation of the Isua Greenstone Belt

Great section. No comments.

Origin of continental crust in IGB

I think the "North and south regions" can be integrated to this section, but I only personally think so.

Compare and contrast with current plate tectonics

The table is effective i think.

See also

This is what I should learn from, to give related term to guide readers.

In general

I think this page is cool and effective in explaining the concept.

Hongcheng Guo (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Erinn Buhyoff's Amazing Review

General Page Foramat

Your use of the resources that wikipedia offers you is amazing. I love the table in the last section, and was unaware you could even do that. The side info column at the top is helpful as well and I will ask you how to do that in the future for possible use on my page. The organization of sections makes sense, but I feel like sections like the "North and South Regions" can be incorporated into an already existing section, or a new, more general section. The "Lithologies" section independently is very well organized.

Section information

The content of your page is not lacking at all and very informative. Also, there isn't really an area where it gets too specific or in depth. All of your content is very relevant to your topic and there's plenty of it. I would caution the addition of much more new information to this page for this problem of going off topic or too specific may be at risk.

Figures

Your figures are very relevant to the sections they were placed in and very easy to understand. I would suggest putting a scale on the cross section figure, and try to organize the first figure a little bit more by possibly giving each rock type its own y-axis column instead of having the symbols scattered all over the place. I would also suggest a map figure in the first section.

Other Comments

Hadean is misspelled in the "Formation of the Isua Greenstone Belt" section. Possibly do research into the debate over Isua being an ophiolite sequence. That could be another relevant section to add, and I don't think i saw anything about it in your page.

Ben Durel

Page Layout

This page looks amazing with all of the figures and charts and list. Seems like you have been pretty creative with it, I am quite impressed!

Introduction

Your introduction seems to be the one things I can actually comment on! First off you may consider putting an introduction title on it, the paragraph just sort of appears out of no where and may look better with title. I think the paragraph as a whole is sub par in comparison to the rest of your page, I feel as if the last two sentences are not well explained or flow with the rest of the introduction.

Isua Greenstone Belt

This section is well done! You seemed a bit redundant with the location, as well as siting your location where you may have been able to site other things which would hold more value(which you do through out the page). Flows well.

Composition

I thought this was also well done but you may consider describing the two TTG hypothesis as well as using the diagram to further get your point across.

Lithologies

Great section! Broken down into well described units!

North and South Regions

I found this section to be unnecessary, you may consider describing the two different regions earlier in the IGB section.

History

You described the history of well, and I also like how you compared and contrasted modern and Archean tectonics because it somewhat entails a cause and effect of certain tectonics in the region.

Diagrams

I thought your second diagram was easily understood and quite relevant, but your first is too dark to even be read.

Overall great page!

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• How come there is a section on Hadean crust when the subject is Eoarchean? The connection is unclear.*
• A map would be good.

Minor issues,

• Don't put a reference on a section header, instead put it on the sentences or paragraphs inside the section.
• There is no need to use abbreviations like IGB, as Wikipedia has plenty of space and it will be more clear to our readers.
• When you make a wikilink, check that what you link to is relevant, eg upwelling refers to the ocean, not the mantle.
• There are many other technical terms you can link, like pillow basalt.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)