Talk:High pressure metamorphic terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone

Untitled

Excellent job! Your page is extremely well organized, informative, and easy to read. I only have a couple of suggestions:

• "Development of High Pressure Terranes" section: you introduce a lot of terms in this section that the average reader may not know. You may want to provide links.
• A photograph of the area of interest or just of the Tibetan Plateau might be a nice and aesthetically pleasing addition to the beginning of the page.

Melissausburn (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chase,

Excellent work, your work is objective and well organized.

I have noticed two very minor things:

• You need a title before the contents.

• Also I suggest moving the introduction right after the title and before the contents.

Good Job and good luck
^^^^not sure whose suggestions those are... Hi there, that map figure looks really good and the intro to the science problem in the beginning provides appreciated background. Here are 3 suggestions:

1) The cross-section figure on tectonic evolution of the BNS zone might work really well close to the beginning of the article, just after the map figure. It could even be in its own section with a bit of text that just replicates and/or expands the caption. Just from my general-interest perspective, that figure is one of the aspects of the article that seems most interesting because it outlines the history of BNS zone formation, and this is why it would be great near the beginning to give more context to all the rock descriptions that follow.

2) Maybe a regional map, locating where the BNS is in relation to the Asian continent, would be a nice and easy addition. Take a map already on wikipedia and add the BNS location, for example.

3) Perhaps a bit heavy on the rocks vs the formation of the suture zone, but see suggestion #1
Bkilli1 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Chase, these are my suggestions

1. It would look better if you rearranged the pictures around the ophiolite section because the words look awkwardly placed between the two pictures.

2. Readers also might like to see a map of the study area in order to better compare the different areas.

3. Lastly, I would like to know more about the implications and how this information could benefit future work.

-Tyler Elorriaga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelorr1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chase, Your page is good. And her is what I think you should change: if your put the graphs in one side. have a numbered figures. refer to the figures in the text. Sadeghm2010 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Chase,

• Great figures. I like them all. Very detailed work as well.
• I have a few suggestions that might enhance the page:
• Remove the Introduction title and incorporate the section into the section under the main title.
• The space next to the contents section needs to be filled, which leads to my next suggestion,
• Possibly next to contents, an image of the contrast in the high elevations of the area. You discuss the impressive area and elevations in the "intro", so I think an image would be helpful. Also, if you were to move the intro information to the first section, then the image under it, next to contents would work.
• Citations are important. Some sentences state data that is not common knowledge and therefore need to be cited.
• In the Hi P Rock Section, the placement of the map throws the section off balance.

Sara8s001 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)