Talk:Karakoram fault system
 | A fact from Karakoram fault system appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Anyone have any ideas on where to attach this so it isn't orphaned anymore? Garrett.Nielsen (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice page, very detailed. I would consider defining some of the terms that might not be apparent to the average viewer, like batholith. Also discussing briefly things like the U-Pb dating. I didn't see any image, not sure if it wasn't loading on my screen correctly or not though. Lots of great sources, nice job!
Adam Turner Aturn4000 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It is an alright page. Defiantly you need to add figures and relate them to text. Improve the intro more general info about the fault. You do not have to manually inter the References just writing reflist between {{}} under references. Sadeghm2010 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Overall good job on the info. Possibly expand on the introduction and maybe give an overview of the page. The origin section seems like an important part of the page so maybe expand on that as well. Also do you have any ideas for a figure or are you working on one?
Sosbor6 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
New reviews
edit1) I like the outline of the article, but the first three sections seem a little short to be divided up so much.
2) I appreciate the map pictures, but I would like to see maybe another photo of something else?
3) You did a good job on the faults segments, very descriptive.
Zandra619 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In the very first sentence "across India and the Asian continent" could be worded a little differently considering India is a part of the Asian continent. I'd like to see a little more background/motivation in this article: What makes this fault important? Why?.. Also you mention some disputes in the fault length section but I never got a feel for what the primary schools of thought were. This article is very descriptive, packing a lot of info into a short article (which is good in my opinion), but it might be slightly difficult for the average Wikireader to follow. Amorse3522 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Morabiac (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Overall nice job! You have a ton of references (not a bad thing) so there must be a reason why this is such a well studied area. It might be beneficial to include a relevance sentence or two. Or even a section depending on what the importance of the region is. In the fault length section you reference two of the authors murphy and Searle, it might help to give the reader some background of these people, why did you include them? Consider providing a link to types of faults, specifically strike-slips
Copyright of PDF files?
editIf the PDF files are derived from other copyright sources, they are not own work, but subject to the copyright of the source images.--ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)