Talk:Main Central Thrust

Annie's Review

Hey! I really liked your figures. But for the first one, you might want to highlight the MCT, because there is a lot going on. I actually did a presentation on the MCT last year. It is a difficult concept. Anyway... I just have a few suggestions for your page...

• Change Himalaya to the Himalayan Mountains
• Do you have any dates for the creation of the Fault? Like when it first was faulted? That would be good to put in the intro.
• Create a sidebar with quick, accessible information about the MCT. (You can get good templates from other Wiki pages)

Geologic Background

I really like the bulleted points! Maybe you can explain where each sequence came from (whether it was from the indian or the asian plate). Also, you can include any deformation or tectonic structures for each sequence.

Kinematic models

Section seems incomplete. You should state why, for each model, the MCT would be in a different place. The images are good, and the images show the MCT, but why would they work? Try explaining the models as well.

Various definitions of the Main Central Thrust

I think this was a cool idea.

For the subcategory, "Definition of the Main Central Thrust from various perspectives," I would bold each criteria, like.. By differences is U—Pb detrital zircon ages ...... It would make them stand out more and look really cool! Also, I don't know why (5) has a bolded section.

Prospect

Good section, but it needs to be a little clearer. Also, should there be a reference in this section?

Overall

Over all, you did a good job at explaining why the MCT is hard to define. There are a few grammar errors in the paper, but it still is really good! I can help you with the grammar if you want. Great job!

Erinn's Review

Overall this is an amazing page. The figures are awesome, and the information is very concise. There are a few things that I see could use some improvement though. You don't give a very general overview of the topic. Doing things like stating the general controversy/debate of this topic, or a very general formation history of the area/MCT would give the reader more background knowledge of the topic. The organization of the page makes sense and it is easy to follow, and the figures are amazing. The only advice I could give about the figures is try to simplify them more, or label things better and more accurately. The prospect section seems like you're leaving out information and you could elaborate more, like describe a model that would result in this one fault being interpreted as a region instead. Overall excellent work and I'm super jealous of how well made your figures are!

Ben Durel's Review

Introduction: This section does not have a title, and should be expanded. Consider further locating where the MCT is(where on the globe would I find it). The information here is well presented especially with the addition of figure 1.

Geologic Background: This section’s introduction is okay, you may considering rough time estimates of the Himalayan orogeny (also fix the “orogen” error) The next couple of sentences are worded strangely, I would consider introducing the three fault units and then maybe describe their orientation (something along the lines of: it is structurally dominated by the three fault-bound units: x,y, and z. theses units all dip north and are stacked north to south respectively, see diagram below) You may even consider expanding your individual descriptions of the units as well. I think your second figure does a good job showing the relationship between the units!

Kinematic Models: This section desperately needs more information. You have a point saying that you need to understand the kinematic model of the Himalayan orogeny, but you fail at explaining the kinematics! Expand on what the Wedge extrusion mode model is, as well as the rest! No one knows what these models mean or do without figure 3, and even with the figure there is still too much interpretation for the reader.

Definitions of the Main Central Thrust: I think that this section as a whole could be broken down further into smaller sections( such as the different MCT analytical techniques used for research, Problems Presented in the research, etc). what do you mean by a definition of the MCT?

Definition of the Main Central Thrust from various perspectices: You may consider renaming this section to something along the lines of “definitions of the MCT based on various criteria”. When breaking down theses definitions, I think you may consider putting in the different authors with their respective test and conclusions. I normally would not say reference the authors in a wiki page but in this case I feel as if it would be separating the differences in the definitions of MCT based off of the data recorded.

Prospect: I think this section could be put within the first definition of MCT sections, just restate how this is a problem in defining your mct boundaries.

Overall I think your page looks good, especially the figures, but you could definitely use some expanding and reread your page for grammatical errors as well.

Tasha's Review

Good figures, but perhaps you could write out a little of what is going on for those who may not know or be able to interpret the images, also, see if there are any articles on the other thrust belts in the area and link them for background information. Overall a good presentation of the information, but it seems slightly short for the number of references you list, so expanding explanations in some sections may be beneficial; remember, people of all skills and backgrounds could potentially read this.

Typos in Figure 3

There are three typos in Figure 3 - Oligene for Oligocene, Denuation for Denudation and Miocenen for Miocene. It would be good to see those fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)