Talk:Tectonic influences on alluvial fans

Comments

your intro needs some rewording in the first sentence. just read it out-loud and you will know what i mean. also in the second sentence change "a geologic history" to "the geologic history"

• Alluvial fan development is highly influenced Tectonic uplift based on the rate of uplift through fan development

Alluvial fan development is highly influenced by the rate of tectonic uplift.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladam26 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oliver, in the tectonic influences section, where you talked about the three ways tectonic activity can influence alluvial fans, you should describe these a little more in depth, not just list them. The alluvial fan reactions should also go into more depth. You could do something like a cause and effect section and describe what happens to alluvial fans during tectonic influences. Also, on your picture, you should draw it a little better and add a caption that is describing what is happening, because I have no idea what is happening in this picture. -Zach Kelly

Dustin's Comments

Oliver, I would try to draw a better figure and refer to it in the text somewhere that can help the reader visualize what you are explaining. I like how you have the article broken up into sections, however I think you should move the geologic significance section up to the top. This will let the reader know the importance of the topic right away and why they should read the rest of the article. Overall it looks like you have the page set up and laid out but it is short. I suggest for you go into more detail when describing things.

Also I did not understand everything you wrote, for example "For alluvial fans to remain active for long periods of time, tectonic activity changes the relief of the fan in the source area." not sure what this sentence means. I get the first part of it but the second could use some more explanation.

-Dustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBoyd13 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jacob's Review

Main Points:

I don’t think “reaction” is a good way to explain what you are explaining what happens to alluvial fans as a result of tectonics. Maybe “shift” or “morphology” works better.

You need to list more evidence/signs of how tectonics affects alluvial fans. It seems as if each sentence in every section is the topic sentence for a paragraph. That paragraph is what will explain the setup you are going for.

You might want to rethink your outline. It seems that you have pieces that are redundant with the sections you have right now. Maybe if you made it about scope then it would flow better. For instance, you talk about alluvial fans on three different scales: across a region, over one fan, and then on the internal structural. These topics still all relate back to the tectonic influence, just on different orders of magnitude.

Through the article:

You don’t need to link to the geology Wiki page and I don’t think that was the way you meant to use “geology” in that sentence anyway.

I feel that some of the terminology doesn’t work and it would if the specific terms from the sources are used and defined in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgross2atLSU (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Eround1

The first thing that I think you should change is with all of your pictures are to close together, I think you can fix this easily by putting a break after the first one. So < br > then </ br > with no spaces. Hopefully that will fix that issue. Possibly try to add links to other pages by linking them in the words. As for content I'm not 100% sure of the details on tectonic uplift and aluvial fans but everything seems to be on par. EJR (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric

I agree with Evan's comments about the pictures. I like them a lot, they're easy to understand and illustrate your point perfectly; but at first glance the labeling confused me. I like the sections you chose to break your topic up into, they really help the organization. The information is easy to read and you avoid a lot of geologic jargon, which is good for people new to the subject. One thing you might be able to add is a short real life example of an alluvial fan that has been influenced by tectonics. Ericorphys73 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Eric

David

Overall I think that the article is fairly well explained and easy to read. The figures are clear enough to be understood but I think it the flow of the article could be improved if the images were alongside the paragraph as opposed to beneath it and it would be better to include a caption for them rather than having to hover the mouse over it in order for the caption to appear. I also think that more links to other pages would be useful in explaining the subject to your readers. DavidMP1 (talk) 8:34, 14 November 2012