Full Picture

Article analysis:

This article provides an interesting new model for the formation of Paleozoic massively bedded barite (MBB) deposits, which are characterized by high-grade barite and often accompanied by clastic-dominant (CD) Zn–Pb sulfide deposits. The proposed model is based on the idea that hydrothermally sourced Ba2+ accumulates as dissolved ion while other metal ions precipitate as insoluble metal sulfides in sulfate-limited euxinic seawater. This model explains the temporal clustering of MBB deposits in Earth history, and was tested using early Cambrian MBB deposits in South China through petrographic and isotope analyses.

The article is generally well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the proposed SLES model for MBB deposit formation. It also presents evidence from petrographic observations and isotope analyses to support its claims, which adds to its trustworthiness and reliability. However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when considering this article's trustworthiness and reliability. For example, it does not explore any counterarguments or alternative models for MBB deposit formation, nor does it provide any evidence to refute them or explain why they may be less valid than the SLES model presented here. Additionally, it does not discuss any potential risks associated with this new model or how it could be applied in practice; this could lead to readers overestimating its practical utility without fully understanding all of its implications. Finally, although the authors present evidence from South China to support their claims, they do not provide any data from other locations where similar MBB deposits have been found; this could lead readers to assume that their findings are applicable everywhere without further investigation into local conditions at each