Geochemistry and Zircon LA–ICP–MS U–Pb Geochronology of the Shuangwang Au Deposit, Shaanxi Province: Implications for Tectonic Evolution and Metallogenic Age
, Jiajun Liu 1,2,*, Jianping Wang 1,2,*, Emmanuel John M. Carranza 3, Chonghao Liu 4,5 and Feng Cheng 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very densely written. It would help the readers to break the long and detailed and rather dry descriptions of the analyzed data into smaller sections . That would draw the interests of the readers. I had a difficult time , spending many hours , to understand the purpose and the merit of the paper.
After a long struggle, I agreed with your conclusions about the ages and isotopic interpretations of the data to finally see your logical conclusions and the tectonic interpretations that caused partial melting after collisions to form the granitoids.
I have no conflict with the interpretation of your geochemical and geochronological data that was acquired by very impressive and labor-intensive analytical work.
Author Response
The reviewer’s comment: no comment
The authors’ answer: We are glad to hear that you agree with our point of view and the innovation of our article. We have improved our manuscript.
Special thanks to you！
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper contains new geochemical data for a pluton related to a gold deposit in Central China. I think that the paper is publishable if the authors are able to edit the language extensively. Overall, the writing is too poor but the data are important for publication. I believe that some senior authors are able to help improve the presentation.
In addition to the language, my other concern is the connection of the igneous events with Au mineralization as stated in the title. The authors report age of the Xiba granodioritic pluton, granite porphyry dykes and lamprophyre dykes. The pluton contains two intrusive phases, if I understand the authors correctly, the 221 Ma granodiorites and 215 Ma monzonite granite phases. The granite porphyry dykes have ages of 213 -220 Ma, whereas the lamprophyre dykes have an age of 215 Ma. It appears that all these rocks were coeval and the discussion about these is not clearly presented, although the authors proposed that these rocks were formed in relation to the collision between the Yangtze and North China Plates at approximately 220 Ma. Although there is a section to discuss the link of these igneous events to the gold mineralization, this linkage is not the main focus of the paper. The title is misleading and should be revised without emphasis of the gold deposit.
A few examples in the abstract:
1. The Shuangwang Au deposit, a primary large-scale Au deposit, sits in the eastern section of the Western Qingling region.
What do you mean "primary Au deposit"? Is "large scale" "large size"? How large is "large"? What is "section" meant here? should "section" be "segment"? "region" is a geographic term. So "section" should be geographic too. Country should be indicated.
2. The outcropping magmatic rocks in the deposit are mainly the Xiba granitoid, with minor granite porphyry and lamprophyre veins.
The authors may mean "Outcropped igneous rock bodies". Use "the Xiba granitoid pluton". Does it intrude something? What about "veins"? Why you do not use "dykes" instead?
3. The Xiba granitoid is comprised of granodiorite and monzonite granite.
Say "The Xiba pluton is composed of ....
Overall, the paper needs to be carefully edited before it can be considered for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagethe language is poor
Author Response
Special thanks to you！
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is noteworthy and may be of interest to readers, but there are some comments, most of which are formal in nature.
106-107 lines. Please check the figure 2 caption to see if there is an error. It seems to repeat the figure 1 caption. It is not clear what "a, b, c" is in Figure 2.
144-198 lines. The geologic description of the deposit is better left in the "Geological Background". In "Materials and Methods" this text (pp. 144-156) is superfluous. The description of sampling (lines 192-195) can be left in "Materials and Methods".
Figure 3 is difficult to perceive because of the color of the inscriptions, the letter designations of each figure, the font, its size, and the size of the scale grid. Figure 3 is carelessly done and is out of place in the text. Editing is required.
Table 1 and Table 2. All values should be given rounded to account for measurement error.
It is recommended to construct REE distribution spectra for each of the rock types and compare them visually.
When describing the correlation of elements in rocks, it is recommended to give the values of correlation coefficients
Figures 7-10 Similar to the above comment, the scaling of the axis fonts and the reduction of the letter designations of each figure should be changed.
Such significant conclusions about the origin of rocks need a larger sample size. If it can be expanded, it is more likely to increase the reliability of the results.
Author Response
Special thanks to you！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors"primary Au deposit" was explained to mean "major deposit". It is confusing with "primary and secondary deposits".
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe writing is not bad, but it can benefit from additional polishing. For example, ”The outcropped igneous rock bodies in the deposit“ sounds a bit strange. ” mainly Xiba granitoid pluton" should be "the Xiba granitic pluton". The better description is:
Igneous intrusions in the region include the Xiba granitic pluton and granite porphyry and lamprophyre dykes.
