Talk:Gulf of Corinth basin

Review for Basin Analysis by Abigail Maxwell

Typo: The Gulf of Corinth is an active extensional marine sedimentary basin thought to have started deforming during the late Miocene - Pleistocene.

Your introduction was very good. It gives a concise overview and description of the basin.

""It's postulated that extension is related to several factors: westward movement of the North Anatolian fault; gravitational collapse of the thickened Hellenide orogenic crust; subduction and slab roll back of the African Plate at the Hellinic trench.[4][2][5] [1]"" You mentioned the factors that affected extension but you didn't explain how the gravitational collapse and subduction and slab roll back contributes to the extension. I think a line or two about each factor will lend a great deal to the reader understanding the formation.

Try not to use abbreviations like "it's".

The Sections on Sedimentation and Faulting seem a little detached. Maybe if you can find some way to link them to the development of basin. I think the information is good; you just to need read it over a few times to see if you like how the two sections flow. One suggestion is maybe including where the sedimentation fits in with the faulting in the faulting section.

I know you are not finished but I assume any natural resources may be mentioned?? If there are no natural resources, maybe what makes this Basin special ( it could be historical not geology related; something interesting like maybe how it gets its name or Greek legends associated with it..just an idea).

Don't forget to include links to the wiki pages for common words you use throughout the article.

Are you adding your information to the current wiki page for the Gulf of Corinth?? ^^ Yes ===Matt O'Leary=== Best Abmax05 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Review by Andrew Webb

The overview (first section) is good. It gives a general overview of the topic with some good scalar values, ages, and general orientation of the belt. You go into detail here about how the belt is unique (it's not parallel to the trench), but you don't explain why. The figure you created explains this well, but I would suggested including a short explanation in the overview. When someone reads this overview, they should be able to quickly learn all the ideas that your page presents, and they can turn to individual sections for more detail.

In order to make this page easier to follow, I would suggest putting an map-view image of the volcanic belt. Maybe show the distribution of volcanic structures with ages (you could possibly modify the image from the TMVB wiki page). Another idea would be to include an image for the geologic background section, to illustrate the pre-Miocene evolution of the area and the rocks underlying the TMVB.

The section titles "geologic background" and "geologic evolution" could be named differently, as they are very similar. Here, you want to discuss the entire history of the belt, which should include the pre and post volcanism geology. Maybe consider change the section titles to something along the lines of "Pre- and Post-volcanism" or "Pre- and Post-Miocene history". Just an idea. I can follow the sections as they are now, but another reader may not understand what each section is trying to describe.

Another thing, your dates seem to be a little off. In the overview, you say that the belt has volcanic rocks up to 32 Ma, but the geologic evolution only includes tectonics events up to 20 Ma (23 with the breakup of the Farallon plate). Can you account for 12 Ma of volcanism?

Jeff was also spot on with the typos, and I believe he is right that you meant the word "silicic" instead of silic. And maybe redraw the figure you made in Illustrator, so it looks more professional (although I do love Paint). The figure is great, and illustrates the point well, it just looks a little sloppy and pixelated.

I'd also include a "related pages" section, which I forgot to do on my page, but it helps the reader.

Oh, and the references are double-posted, as you probably know. It looks like you posted the whole list of references in the the reflist. The real reflist is on the bottom, I'm not sure what is going on with the numbers on the top. Ask around the class and see if someone can pick up what happened here.

Awebb6 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

major comments:

Since there is already an article on Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, are you planning to paste your text into that article later? as your writing is highly relevant to that. This page uses a reference called " Igneous Petrogenesis of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt" but you have not touched this article by Gómez-Tuena.

minor issues:

• Don't use specialized abbreviations such as "TMVB" or SMO or MAT. I know that geologists like to do this, but we can afford the space to write the whole name.
• Link the terms the first time you use them, such as Mexico.
• For references I would suggest that you use the expanded ref tags the first time you need them, and then use the / ones for repeats. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some basics

Since it isn't too useful to praise or dispraise, here are some basics.

• All your refs are in the intro. The intro is an intro - it sketches the concepts brought up later in the article with no or minimal referencing.
• The more technical material should be brought up later, say in a geology section.
• The picture has nothing to do with the Corinth rift but is plate-tectonic in nature. You can't even see the rift. And, it is not even on the east but is on the west. Might be a typo. Maybe someone should line up the pics in Commons first so we can see what we got.
• The topic you want, which is not very clearly distinguished, is back-arc extension, of which slab-rollback is an aspect. That is where the discussion should be. The use of links to WP articles to explain some of these concepts could be improved. The write-up assumes knowledge of all these terms. I'd have to attach an "incomprehensible" tag. The writing seems to toss jargon around without any unity of understanding. The goal is to clarify, not to impress with jargon. The basic concept is simple: the Gulf of Corinth is a pull-apart due to back-arc extension and so are the subsidiary normal faults and rift valleys to the north, which slice across the NW-SE trending mountain folds caused earlier by subductive compression.
• There should be an infobox.
• All the data on faults is given without any explanation. Don't you think we need it?
• The write-up is a mach-up of someone's web site, probably pirated. We don't need to be sold on the use of the gulf as an easy paradigm for scientific investigation. We're not scientists talking to each other or professors selling the research to the graduate students.
• I notice the use of personal names in the comments. BS. A thousand pats on the back by cronies does not add a thousandth of value to the article. If you want to make it better, get to work.Botteville (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)