Talk:Elephant Moraine 79001

Peer Review take 2

This page is really impressive, you certainly covered all your bases, and I have to fish kinda hard to come up with any improvements for it. 1) Combine the description subsections into one main section named "Characteristics" (or something) with two subparts labeled "macroscopic" and "mineralogical" 2) Break up the images so that they're not all on the same side column, it'll make the page look cleaner. 3) Is there more to talk about the "Debunking evidence for life" section? That was very interesting, something I have never heard of before, and I feel like you only briefly touched on it. SuskoWiki (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I really like your page. I like the figures used and I feel like the figures illustrate the topic well. It appears that you do not have an original image for this page yet. I feel like the page has some terminology you could link or explain for people who do not possess a prolific knowledge of geoscience terms can understand the page easier. Maybe for the section describing the microscopic attributes you could talk about mineralogical textures. drau1 (talk) 1:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning

1)First thing I noticed right off the back was that all of your pictures are aligned to the right of the page. It might help to break up some of your wall of text by shifting some of the pictures to the left of the page. I think it'll help people reading your page to stay focus on the information.

2)If the information is available, in addition to mineralogical data, you might also want to include chemical data on topics such as % composition or weight percent oxide of the two lithologies. That information could be useful when making comparisons to both chemical data of other martian meteorites or insitu rocks on mars.

3)Martian Meteorites are referred to as SNC's and then broken down from there. It might be good to include a little information about SNC's in general and include a Wiki link to the martian meteorite page already on Wikipedia. SuskoWiki (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Smith's review

I would suggest moving some of the pictures around, maybe have some of them on the left or indented into some of the paragraphs to have it “fit” together better. You could probably add more info to some of the sections. More references would be good as well, and you did not reference anything in the “Evidence for life on Mars” section. You have an extra period in the “Macroscopic Descriptions” section, second paragraph, second sentence. Also move your reference links to after the period, not before.

Feedback from Matthew Smith #2

Again, all of your images are on the right. You could mix it up a little, interchanging them from left to right. While editing just replace right, with left and see how that looks. Try to link “Zagami” in your intro paragraph to a website that describes what Zagami is. Can you include percentages of minerals in the mineralogical descriptions part? Cite where the images are from. In your Mineralogical Descriptions section the spacing is broken up. Just looks weird with the rest of your sections having solid paragraphs. Move your citations to after all of the periods and commas. You have an extra period in Macroscopic Descriptions, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence.

--Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesschamp82 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

You may well be more interested in the isotopes of nitrogen article, and an explanation of why nitrogen on Mars can be distinguished from elsewhere in the solar system.

You mention "unique conditions" but then we do not hear what they were.

You say that the rock is completely crystalline, yet there is mention of glass, that is not crystalline.

A picture shows "dark clast inclusions", but this is not explained in the text. I give you a tick for using doi's. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from David Rau

Most of the feedback that I was thinking about while reading your page was things Matt said. I believe that it would be beneficial to have a link to give more detail about the Zagami meteorite. The last two sentences in the Martian meteors part could use a ciatation. In the section section explaining mineralogical details it would be nice to see some more information such as mineral assemblages, textures, or the paragenetic sequence. You talk about the glassy feldspar in the macroscopic description section but do not mention it at all in the mineralogical section. I really like the see also section linking related topics. I saw how you did that earlier and used it on my page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drau1 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)