Talk:Geology of Himachal Pradesh

[Untitled]

Hi Nathalie,

Here is some feedback from a non-specialist reader. I think the article has excellent organization and is very easy to read and understand. Not too many subsections and they seem the right length. Great job so far! I like the visuals and think they add to the article.

Here are some suggestions:

1. I'm not sure what the Quaternry means. Perhaps an explanation or a blue link? 2. There are quite a few terms I don't understand in section 1.1.4 (e.g. paragneiss, schist, orthogneiss). Perhaps an explanation or blue links? 3. Should all the visuals be referenced in the text?

Thanks,

Textbookzoom3

Hi Nathalie, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textbookzoom3 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your page overall is great. The flow is easy to follow, from the tectonic units to the development of the Himachal Pradesh. There are some suggestions for you to consider.

First, for the tectonic unit, you could indicate more clear on the locations of every unit, the figures you show are not clear.

Second, the use of data is good to support your idea, but the layman does not have a concept of the influence of the number such as "exhumed at a rate of 1.4±0.2 mm/yr and 1.1±0.4 mm/yr respectively" or "high rainfall of >2000mm/yr and coincides with the tectonic windows".

Third, for scientific research, I suggested introducing their research method, it is hard for the public to know the method of the research.

Keep Going!!!!

Marco:)

Hi Nathalie, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolam308 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your page is very well organised - your use of sections and sub-sections is very clear. Some minor points which you may consider are as follows:

You could put the table of contents (TOC) after the introduction, as in most wiki pages. This would make the initial view of the page more accessible to your readers.

Your introduction feels very short compared to other pages. This isn't necessarily a negative point, but does your introduction summarise the key points from your page? You provide a good description of the overall history of the region but could you summarise points from the other parts of your page here? What do you want the readers to take away from your page if they only read the introduction?

Good use of a table to summarise key information!

Good use of GeoMapApp but because the figures are small, the colour gradient cannot be read without enlarging the image. This is understandable though otherwise I suspect the figures would have to be very large. Your figure 2, 3, 4 and 5 must be bigger as I cannot read any of the information on the figure. Figure 5 is missing a label.

A page already exists on the geology of the Himalaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya)which I can't see linked on your page as a hyperlink. Some of the units you describe are also described on this page (but often with alternative names for different units, the joy of Himalayan literature unfortunately). Perhaps you could contribute to this page too and check for any overlapping content.

Some minor spelling and grammar points: "As collision proceed", should be proceeded/proceeds. "simontaneously", should be simultaneously. "Sequencearge", ??? "While crusts have been brought away by subduction and slab break-off", crust should be singular here, but "brought away" sounds informal, is there a better phrase you could use here?

Well done again!

Hayley

Hrhunt (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi Nathalie,

For communications:

1. You may put a geological timescale and show when those sedimentary rocks were formed, for non-professionals.

2. More links can be added to some terms, like “depocenter”, “exhumation”, “subduction”, “accretion” and many of those.

3. The definition of exhumation is very clear. But I don’t understand the tectonic windows are the climatic controls, or the observations, or the results of those controls? I think you may discuss how the precipitation is controlled by the orography; then separately discuss the effects of erosion and uplift on exhumations.

4. Ma changes to million years (Tectonic Wedging Model),(GHC)

5. You may add table number; for the table under THS, you may use the same format as the above. (Age-Unit-Lithology-Environment);

For visuals:

1. You may move Fig 1 back to the first paragraph instead of hanging at the top.

2. There should be a typo in the second paragraph that ‘Fig. 4” should be “Fig. 2”.

3. A simple cross-section can be added to better understand those five major events. Perhaps an evolutionary diagram?

4. You may make the figures larger. Coz a geological map without a readable legend is nothing. Moreover, I cannot correlate those five units on the geological map.

Overall, you did a great job of explaining and presenting the geology and possible formational models.

Nice work, my friend!

Oscar - 20201012

Hi Nathalie,

It is a great article with so much content! Good job ar. And you have done a lot readings! There are some suggestions for you below:

Visuals - it is better to enlarge the images, such that it is easier for readers to read and follow without enlarging the page/ clicking into the image, especially the legends are small - A legend of the faults full name can be added for clearer understandin of their positions when I refer to the map

Contents - What is the significance of knowing the geology of this area? - A missing heading in the table naming the formation groups? - I suggest adding some more brief intorduction to "climatic control on exhumation", for example, why do we need to know the exhumation rates? Possibly it helps the investigations of rock materials beneath/ a better understanding to reconstruct the geological model(?

Communications - Overall it is easy to follow - Maybe more indications about the age, eg from exact numbers of age instead of just the name of Paleocene

Language - Maybe use more active voice/ re-structure the sentence e.g. "the orogenic materials making up this area also vary in the same direction" It is better to be "there are variations of the orogenic materials along the same direction."

e.g. "there is a rich exposure of various rocks which are well-defined." Change into "The exposed rock types have greate variations, the (rock properties/stratigraphy/age/boundaries?) are well defined."

Keep going!'

Kenneth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waikinl (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Natalie,

Your review of the Himachal geology is great, and well documented. Great Work!

These are my suggestions:

1. Except from STD, other major structural units (bounding faults) are not described.

2. I suggest you enlarge most of the figures for better visualization.

3. In the second paragraph, correct correct Fig. 4 to Fig. 2.

4. Hyperlinks are missing for some technical words, e.g., tectonics, subduction, depocenters, exhumation etc.

5. The climatic control on exhumation could be rewritten as Climatic control on topographic growth, such that you introduce the concept of exhumation when discussing. Also tectonic window should be cited as example of influence of climate-erosional processes. Major subheadings could be precipitation and maybe glacial.

6. I am not sure if the scientific research section is really important for this article.

Most importantly, enlarge the figures.

I hope this help.

Cheers, Blessing — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessingAdeoti (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi Nathalie,

Your topic is interesting and you have got great improvements. I have some comments for you.

1. Great use of figures! This time the images are large enough to see

2. is it normal that I cannot see Indo-Gangetic plain in the image?

3. I think you can work on changing the first sentence of major tectonic units, rather than tell us the orientation first. I would like to know the age and the numbers of units in the whole formations

4. Any special landform features I can see in this sequence? Maybe you can introduce it a bit in the introduction! So that it can make the page more attractive ;)

5. What is tectonic wedging window? Maybe you can add some definition on it. It is little hard to understand even looking at your figures

6. Also, is there any estimation of how the topography was lowered because of precipitation? Or how to estimate it? (Maybe a section of Methodology?)

Overall, a good piece of work! Keep going Geo bobo.

Kenneth 15Nov, 20

---

Hi Nathalie,

Here are some comments for you.

1. We can see your efforts on drawing those maps! You can draw a line across fig. 2, showing where the cross-section below is located.

2. You can also add a scale bar for fig 2 if it is possible.

3. The tables you use to describe the rock units within the 5 events can be consistent. Like Age-Unit-Group/Formation-Lithology-Note pattern.

4. I can't really follow what is describing for fig. 4. Which part of text you are trying to visualize?

5. For Fig. 6, is the black circle with dotted line the black ellipse? You can thicken it for better visualization.

6. You may add more descriptions for fig. 7

Nice Work! Oscar

---

Hi Nathalie, Hayley here again!

Good simplification of a figure from literature!

Your useful links box is so small my attention is not drawn to it, could it be bigger? The white text labels in fig.2 are still small and hard to read. Could they be bigger? Your fig.3 caption could be more descriptive - what is the purpose of showing the cross section? you can state this in the text body and caption. You could include links to your models - I red linked channel flow model in my page. Is it possible to move figs 6 and 7 so they are not adjacent to the references? do you need figure labels if figs are integrated into the text well?

Well done!

Hayley Hrhunt (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nathalie

I like your cross-section and the geological map. Good work!

Here are some suggestions for you. 1. You can explain more some technical terms such as alluvial sequence. 2.You can explain the process of glacial erosion fig 7, it is difficult to understand.

You improved a lot. Keep it up !!!

Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolam308 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Abandoned by nominator.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

geological map of Himachal Pradesh

• ... that rocks in Himachal Pradesh are heavily thrusted and immensely folded? Source: [10.1130/GES00627.1]
  • ALT1:... that ...?

• Reviewed: Helmut Koch (conductor)

Created/expanded by Nykwong (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC).

• This is a student nomination, and was nominated more than a month after creation, well outside the DYK window. Its edit history is a prime example of an article development that should have used the draft space. There are file licensing concerns, for example File:Major rivers in himachal.png, although they appear very much good faith and a result of unfamiliarity with our system. There's a few unsourced bits and pieces, but overall the article appears decent, so I am willing to extend significant IAR and do a more detailed review if the author wants to work on it, which they should indicate on this page. CMD (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• CMD, the article was moved from the nominator's sandbox to mainspace on 15 November, so it was nominated one day beyond the seven-day DYK deadline. For this kind of delay, only minimal IAR is needed. For these annual Geology nominations, nominator Graeme Bartlett is the one ultimately responsible for these, and is who you should be working with. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• The licencing for Major rivers in himachal.png appears valid. I add the permission link that grants the CC-BY-4.0 license http://www.geomapapp.org/FAQ.html#CitingGeoMapApp . The appropriate attribution was included. I will check sourcing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks BlueMoonset and Graeme, my apologies Graeme and Nykwong, I was misinterpreting things yesterday. A bit ill. Hopefully I will get the rest of this right. As I said the overall article is quite good. There's a few unsourced parts in "Development of the thrust wedge". I think the source intended is the one in the File:Accretion 1217.jpg caption, if so it should be duplicated into the prose. A page number would be helpful too. The last sentence of "Wedge extrusion model" may be from the immediately preceding Vannay et al source, but I can't access it to check (wiley website isn't working for some reason). The Climatic control on topographic growth section has some minor bits outside of sources, I assume they could be supportable by the Thiede source, but can't access it. I've made some other relevant tweaks myself.
• On DYK specific needs, the hook seems a bit uninspiring. It could use some extra details, perhaps the geologic eras involved, the Indian and Eurasian plate collision, or the multiple tectonic units at the surface. Another hook topic may be the interaction between rainfall and isostatic load in the region, although this may be tricky to word accessibly. Best, CMD (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: Any updates on this and the other geology noms? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Marking for closure as abandoned by nominator, who has not responded to multiple pings on this and other nominations over the past several weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)