Talk:Salt surface structures

Tyler Hebert

First off I really like all of the figures that you have on your page, however, you have the exact same figure more than once on the page so try to make sure they only appear once on the page. Another thing is maybe try to reference the figures in the page. Also the information on the page is good but I feel like most peoples pages are longer so maybe try to add more information. Maybe try to put a section on where do these surface salt structures occur most commonly and why are they not found in other places. Also try to get more references to use since you only have 2 and that should give you some more info to write about. Overall great page.

Chang's comment

For the introduction, it is simple and clear. It will be better to demonstrate a figure of salt surface structure and some pictures of how it looks from outside

In the evolution part, I think 1) each of the piercement needs a example, for example any place matches up with active piercement how it is developed with the local tectonic evolution. 2)They definitely will look better with a figure to show people how each formed. Here is a figure I found, it may be helpful http://books.google.com/books?id=ihny39BvVhIC&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=active+piercement+salt&source=bl&ots=EhhGrZm2Ie&sig=ZNv5ovvHhZbOldXmDjyhlLDIddM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lzc7VPKSL6Ka8QGix4GwDw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=active%20piercement%20salt&f=false -Chang

In the types of surface structure, it still need some figures to demonstrate each one better. the last part of "trust Advance" could be expanded with more information, for example the three driving process. -Chang

Overall, the whole page has a simple and clear structure of salt surface structure. I suggest 1) Add more figures and pictures 2) more information of each part is needed. it should have some specific example to each definition. 3) There should be some potential research direction about this, like something people cares but has a weak understanding. more deeply information is necessary. -Chang

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• I am happy to report that this appears to be your own work made without copying others' writings.
• This would be much better with some diagrams.
• Examples of real structures would be great.
• It would be good to have more references. At least one is a review, and the other is highly relevant. 5 or 6 references could be the right number to match your peers!
• "surface of the crust" is a bit confusing, as salt lakes will have a crust, but do you mean crust of the Earth? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Review from Hongcheng Guo

1. There is just 2 piece of references. It should be more. 2. The introduction is good and it has figures! 3. I think you need a separate background information, but the content can be found in the first paragraph. You just need to change your organization. 4. You have told the evolution and types of salt surface structures, but things stop abruptly. It would be better to give a section to say something like why salt surface structures are important, the current research condition and what needs to be done in further research. 5. The figures fit with text. This is good.

Hongcheng Guo (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Title

The current title doesn't reflect usage in the geological literature - it returned only one hit on both Google Scholar and Books. I think that much more widely used allochthonous salt structures would be preferable, and could cover the closely related topic of salt canopies as well. Mikenorton (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I finally realised that the title meant salt structures at the surface (whether that's a land surface or the seabed), which suggest that the lead section is less than completely clear. My comments on the existing title remain, as it's just not used - 'emergent salt structures' gets a few more hits and 'salt extrusion' even more. The structures being described here are a subset of allochthonous salt structures and I think that the project could do with a more general page on that topic, rather than the current version, which is rather limited in its range. Mikenorton (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted figures

Several of the images are shown in their file description at commons as deriving directly from Hudec and Jackson's published work, without any evidence that the original authors have given permission for reuse of these figures. They need to be either redrawn or removed as a matter of urgency. Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to see that they've been redrawn. Mikenorton (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Durel's Review

Tasha Review: Introduction: This section does not have a title, but I guess it doesn’t really need one being directly underneath the page’s title. I find this introduction to be very informative and well done! Evolution Histories: Though this is an advanced scientific Wikipedia page, you may consider explaining or breaking down some of your geologic vocabulary so a broader audience can appreciate your page! You should also try and create links to specific geological terms so people can research what you are talking about in order for better understanding of your page. I think your figure does a great job of explaining and complimenting the structural changes you have listed. Types of Surface Structures: The first sentence has kind of strange wording, maybe try something like: “once the salt structure has reached the surface it is categorized into four different salt structures:”

Overall I think your page looks amazing! All of your figures are well down though some could potentially use more of an explanation; I specifically had some trouble interpreting the open toe advance. Lastly I think you may look into finding more sources, to my knowledge salt tectonics is a pretty large topic so I am sure there is more out there that you could use! Well done though!