"

 Gneiss 

Hello, Vsmith  I just finished going through the article on Gneiss. I made a few copy-edits and moved a few sentences. (I hope you approve.) I noticed a few things that I felt I had better ask you about before changing anything:

1) I noticed there was a section called ""Types"" that contains only two sentences, and that the first of those is a repetition of a sentence I saw earlier at the end of the section headed ""Composition"". I don't think the sentence needs to be repeated, but I didn't know which place was best for it.

2) The section on ""Etymology"" starts with this sentence:

The etymology of the word gneiss is disputed.

but then we read of only one theory as to the origin of the word. If the etymology is disputed, shouldn't at least one other theory be given?

3) In the second paragraph in the section Gneiss#Gneissic banding, the word ""relatively"" appears four times. I'm wondering whether all of them are necessary.

4) Regarding the images:

(a) I think they could be arranged better than they are. The first two images after the lead image are bunched close to the top. Wouldn't it be better if they were next to the sentences that mention those types of gneiss?

(b) The first image after the lead image mentions Augen gneiss from Brazil, but nowhere in the article does it say that gneiss is found in Brazil.

(c) The third image after the lead image mentions gneiss from New York State, but nowhere in the article does it say that gneiss is found in New York State. Also, there is no mention of gneiss found in New England or any of the western states.

(d) There is a whole section called Gneiss#Lewisian gneiss, and a whole section called Gneiss#Archean and Proterozoic gneiss, but there is no image of Lewisian, archean, or proterozoic gneiss. 

I don't mind searching for images, but I don't know where to look and would need advice on uploading and licenses. -   "