Talk:Detrital zircon geochronology

Review from Vincent

1) For starting to read this article, i am curious to know somethings related to the difficulties of the using Detrital Zircon Geochronology. What trigger the development of advanced technique. Possibly, the error is so significant by the machine or the mineral itself. May add some in the introduction. 2) A real example of how to analyse the detrital zircon to give us a date of a particle geological depositional event. 3) Add some pictures by showing how zircon look like to attract the audience attention.

Review from Jeffrey

Hello Cloudy, nice article but i think that a few amendments would make it a bit better:)

1) lets start with the most important problem in your page: fig. 1 is quite messed up since all the words are excluded when you uploaded or exported the picture, therefore it is quite impossible to understand what you try to say from the diagram without looking at table 1.

2) I think it would be better if you can clarify the definition of convergent setting and collisional setting in table 1 since they seem to have a bit overlap in meaning as I would think that collisional setting is included under the meaning of convergent setting. I guess what you try to say is convergent plate boundaries with subduction (ocean-ocean/ocean-continent collision) versus the ones with intense mountain building processes (continent-continent collision). I think it would be better to clarify a bit on those terms.

3) In the 'filtering by U-Pb dating discordance' section: you mentioned '...intrinsic uncertainties within the three yield U-Pb ages...', I find this quite hard to understand since as far as i know (from the U-Pb dating wiki page) there are only two U-Pb dating reaction chain. Then I saw that you mentioned that '206Pb/207Pb for ages older than 0.8 - 1.0 Ga', which makes me guess that you are counting 206Pb/207Pb dating age as one of the 3 yielded age (together with the 2 U-Pb ages). I am not sure if that is what you mean, but if that is the case, I guess you better modify to include Pb-Pb dating in the title of your section.

4) I would suggest more explanation on how the thick lithosphere or the assembly of supercontinent influence the magma generation as I saw that mentioned a few times in the article without much explanation. Cheers and good luck!

Suggestions from Beth

Hi Cloud, your page is detailed and has lots of information. Here are a few things I think would improve it:

1) In general I think your page is challenging to understand due to it being advanced which is good mainly but some areas could do with some more explaining. For example the part about the discordance level (does this mean the U-Pb ratio?) I do not understand and as I'm sure you wrote it so it makes sense, but this is not easy for your average wikipedia reader!

2) The 2σ uncertainty is not clear on what it is either and I think many readers would have to look this up separately.

3) The inclusion of a diagram and table in the tectonics section is really helpful and although they need to be checked over for errors when you made the table, I think another diagram or image earlier on would help explain the sample processing better to give the reader some real life relation.

4) Expansion of the Qualitative analysis vs quantitative analysis section would be good too. This could elaborate on what you have already written and addition of a graph or whatever technique is used to show the comparisons may help visualise the different benefits to the analysis types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.126.124 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

review from Jennifer

Hi Cloud! Here are some suggestions:

1. Some of your figures are too small and it is hard to read the paragraph and relate to the image at the same time. Try to enlarge the image to a size in which reader can read the text inside the figure without clicking open it.
2. For Table 1. Different types of data in detrital zircon study, I am not so sure what do you mean by three main types of data. Do you mean it is very common for research paper to provide (1)analyzed zircon data, (2)methodology and (3)sample data together in a data sheet? Cause I expect the methodology section is usually separated as an individual part in the paper? Anyway, I think it is good to present them in table, but I would suggest separating them into 3 different tables under three sub-sections.
3. I think the term "Concordia" is commonly used in zircon data interpretation and you have also mentioned it twice in the page. You may want to explain the term a bit or provide the link of related wiki page to the reader.

Overall, I think your page provides lots of useful information and is easy to follow:) Jjyyu8 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Review from Tanya

Hi Cloud:)! Here are some suggestions for your page:

1. For the figure 2, it's quite difficult to see clearly all the five diagrams as they are put on the same row. I suggest you putting them into 2 rows, like 2 diagrams on the first row and the other 3 put on the second row, so that they can look bigger and easier for readers to see the details inside. To make it even clearer, you may add "stage1-5" to the diagrams to show the step-by-step process of the formation of igneous zircons as well as the detrital zircons.

2. In the section of "Type of detrital zircon analysis", you have mentioned different spectrometry for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. I think you can add some diagrams to show the set up of the spectrometry, so that readers can visualise the real setting, and it's more easily to understand than just reading the paragraphs.

3. You have mentioned "Concordance" and "Discordance" in table 1 and the section of "Filtering detrital zircon data". However, general public may not understand these terms. I suggest you adding hyperlinks of these terms or add some descriptions at the beginning of the paragraph in the subsection "By U-Pb age discordance".

Tanya

yuen919 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews from Wayne

Hi Cloudy! I have just read an impressive article introducing the detrital zircon dating, which is the project i am currently doing. I wish this page could have appear earlier, so that i need no to glance through paper but to start by reading this goo introduction.

To improve the page, you should:

- hyperlink ALL the possible geological terms and geologically termed location. Especially at the bottom part of the page quite a lot of terms can be hyperlinked. Some visitor may not even know what is convergence, foreland basin etc. Hyperlink them would help readers to get your ideas easier.

Really impressive work. Well done

Wayne

Reformat Fig 2

Figure 2 doesn't display well on smaller screens and mobile devices. The frames should be displayed in a single vertical column. -- Dough34 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)