Talk:Deep water cycle

Sources

Bibliography for this article: Jacobsen, Steven D.; van der Lee, Suzan, eds. (2006). "Earth's Deep Water Cycle". Geophysical Monograph Series. doi:10.1029/gm168. ISSN 0065-8448.

"New Evidence of Earth’s Deep Water Cycle Reveals A Virtual Buried Ocean". KQED. 2014-06-12. Retrieved 2019-01-28. Tait, K.; Lanzirotti, A.; Newville, M.; Zhang, D.; Shen, A. H.; Rossman, G. R.; Ma, C.; Prakapenka, V. B.; Greenberg, E. (2018-03-09).

"Ice-VII inclusions in diamonds: Evidence for aqueous fluid in Earth's deep mantle". Science. 359 (6380): 1136–1139. doi:10.1126/science.aao3030. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29590042. Smcminn1234 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Benji's Peer Review

Lead:

I really like the sentence connecting the water cycle on the surface to the deep water cycle. I think it provides a nice transition from what people generally know to the topic you cover. I think maybe you could add another phrase after the first sentence explaining the depths that the deep water cycle operates within? For instance, you could mention that it extends from the transition zone all the way to the lower mantle. I think this might provide a smoother transition from the general first sentence to the info on minerals. I also really like how your first paragraph gives a brief intro of all the major sections of your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Structure:

The sections definitely make sense in terms of flow. I think the way you transition from upper mantle to lower mantle processes is really smooth and makes sense. We discussed this in class, but I was thinking maybe you could add a sentence to the "Purpose of Deep Water" section explaining that not much is known about the process's connection to life on Earth, as well as other phenomena. I think this would make the section a lot more conclusive and leave the reader a bit more satisfied? Finally, I was wondering if the evidence section could fit in with the measuring section, as the two seem pretty related. You could maybe split the measuring section into parts, with one describing experimental methods like seismology, spectroscopy, etc., and the other detailing material evidence like ice-VII minerals. Or, maybe you could separate the section into a part on the transition zone and another on the lower mantle? Another suggestion could be to have the evidence for deep water cycling placed first? I feel like you jump into the technical information about ringwoodite and other minerals right away, which might be overwhelming for some readers without that much of a background in the topic.

Balanced coverage:

Everything seems really well balanced, and the length of different sections seems natural. Nothing is off-topic, and although I'm not familiar with deep water cycling, the information and perspectives considered seem quite thorough. One more thing is that it is extremely difficult to obtain quality scholarly figures with free commons, but if it is possible for you to get more images or perhaps images more related to the article content it might help the reader visualise what you talk about. You include a figure of subduction but never really touch that much upon it in the article—maybe it would also aid the connection between the text and image if you described how water gets into the mantle (subduction and other processes?).

Neutral content:

The article never feels persuasive or biased towards a particular school of thought. I understand that information about the topic is not conclusive, and I think you do a great job of mentioning if something isn't certain. One suggestion might be to be a bit more specific with your references. For instance, you mention "Using seismic experiments, velocity measurements, and spectroscopy methods has allowed researchers to confirm the presence of melt and water in the transition zone" as well as "Using techniques of infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and x-ray diffraction, experts were able to calculate...". I think maybe it could be helpful to the reader if you mentioned where the research came from? Especially with a topic where research breakthroughs like the ones you describe aren't conclusive, it could help to specifically state the source of information rather than just citing it.

Reliable sources

All of the sources seem very scholarly, and there is a wide variety of sources drawn upon for research. It doesn't seem like you draw too much from one source. A really tiny thing is that sometimes you have the citation right after the period, and sometimes you have a space in between the period and the citation. Maybe you could try to keep it a bit more consistent?

Grammar and Style: The writing was clear and cohesive. Great job!

Reflection paragraph of peer review

I found Benji’s peer review comments extremely useful and incorporated his feedback into my updated article draft. He commented that the “Measuring deep Earth water” and “Evidence” sections of my article were closely related and could potentially be included under a single section. I restructured my article to reflect this by combining both sections under a single heading as two subsections. This helped enhance continuity and flow within my article. Another great suggestion was to add in a sentence about how the discoveries related to the deep Earth water cycle are relatively recent and are thus still surrounded by controversy, strengthening the section of my article regarding the purpose of Earth’s deep water. I also added clarification of unclear, complex terminology and added in more detail about subducting slabs per Benji's suggestions. He also commented that my article would be strengthened with more applicable images and figures. I completely agree that my article is lacking the strength that pertinent figures could provide. With that concern in mind, I created my own figure that is more applicable to my article. I also emailed four of the authors from papers I referenced throughout my article and am waiting for responses (hopefully) granting me permission to use figures from their papers. Today I heard back from one of the authors who is granting me permission to use an earlier version of his figure in my Wikipedia article. I will add that figure as soon as he emails it to me.

One comment that I was unsure how to address was in regards to adding in the names of researchers when I mention their research in my article. My hesitation with adding in the names of researchers to the body of my article is that I am already referencing their work with citations, which allows readers to follow the citation links if they are curious as to the details of the research I present. For that reason, it seems a bit extraneous to me to mention the names of every researcher whose work I discuss. I spoke to Wendy about this during class and she agreed that refraining from naming the researchers in the Wikipedia article and instead referencing them only through citation is a good way to proceed and seems to align with Wikipedia's tutorials. For that reason, I am choosing to leave the researchers' names out of my article when I mention their work. Overall, I took from Benji’s comments that the grammar, style, cohesion, and flow of my article were in place. With his suggestions to fix smaller issues like explaining a couple complex terms, restructuring the order of my article, and adding in more figures, I feel that my Wikipedia article is stronger and much closer to a publishable version.

For this next review, I am hoping for feedback on the page as a final product. After adding in the lacking details mentioned in the last peer review, I want to know if everything flows more smoothly, if any parts stand out as confusing (such as any terminology), and if it seems like anything else is still missing (especially within the existing sections). I know that my images are not incredibly strong, but I believe this aspect of my Wikipedia article will be strengthened when I receive the author's figure. I am also curious as to how the first figure (that I created) is perceived and whether it seems like it should be changed at all. Smcminn1234 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Second Peer Review

This is such a strong article! The lead provides specific details while offering some general introduction for the deep water cycle. The photo you added of the mineralogy at different depths is super helpful for me as a reader, and I feel like I grasped a much deeper understanding of the processes that take place in the mantle after reading this second draft. I also love the sentence about controversial evidence/theories regarding the purpose of deep water! I'm curious to know if there are any interesting theories that you came across! However, I understand that some of these are not evidence-based and/or are hard to find, so I think it's totally fine if the section remains as it is. I also really think the merging of the evidence and measurements sections makes the article a lot more coherent. I definitely see a smooth transition and a lot more flow between the sections now. As I said before, I think the photos are awesome! I know you're still waiting on some authors to respond, but as of now I find them a lot more specific and helpful to me in understanding the article content. I don't know anything about the deep water cycle, but all the scientific material you present seems clear and relatively easy to follow, although technical. The only thing I don't quite understand is Ice-VII. Do you happen to have any wiki pages or helpful links that you could attach to the article and help explain? Again, the writing is superb. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this the right title?

As the DYK reviewer has pointed out, "deep water cycle" may be a better title for this article. However, that has problems too. First, no source is provided for a definition that restricts this cycle to the transition zone and lower mantle. And even if this is a well-established definition, it's not clear that this article is really about a water cycle. There is no discussion of fluxes or residence times (maybe because so little is known about them), and the connection with the surface cycle is a bit tenuous because little information on the upper mantle is provided. Perhaps it would be better to extend the scope of this article to the entire mantle and call it Water in Earth's mantle. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Addressing questions about deep Earth water cycle article

@Casliber: I changed the first footnote from referencing another Wikipedia article to referencing a separate source. In regards to how definitive this article makes the existence of a deep Earth water cycle sound, it seemed from my research that most current theories believe that water is present below the Earth's surface but the implications of this water is not well known. I tried to make that clear, especially in stating that implications for Earth's deep water cycle remain controversial.

As @RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): points out, I understand the concerns with the article's title. However, the "deep Earth water cycle" or "Earth's deep water cycle" (which mean the same thing) is how I came across this topic referenced in some of the literature during my research. For that reason, this seemed like a fitting article title because it reflected the literature. However, if @RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): believes changing the title would make more sense, then you are welcome to do that. Additionally, I do not discuss fluxes or residence times because much of the research on the deep Earth water cycle is relatively recent and much is still unknown. Also, I'm not sure the best way to make the presence of the deep Earth water cycle seem less definitive, especially since the research I found supported the existence of a deep water cycle with the stipulation that research on this topic is relatively recent. But I would love help from @RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): if you feel that you could make the article more balanced. (Also, the course I was in did end on 3/20, but if there are minor adjustments I can help with, please let me know.) Smcminn1234 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

O.k., I have renamed it "Deep water cycle". That's consistent with "Earth's deep water cycle", and none of the related articles such as Water cycle include Earth in the title. I'm still wondering about the definition. Unfortunately, I can't access the paywalled articles, but the articles I can read don't restrict the definition to the transition zone and lower mantle. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the issues that can get fiddly at times is that wikipedia is not a venue for Original Research, and that we have to go with the material as presented in the sources. This can be frustrating at times (such as now with the naming issue) but we have to reflect usage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I was concerned that this article was more of a snapshot of some of the thinking on the deep water cycle and not a balanced view of the subject. After looking for ways to supplement the content, I decided that the only workable approach was a complete rewrite. It is still a work in progress, but I decided that the time was right to move the content from my user draft. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Question of difference with another Wikipedia article

This article states that estimates of the amount of water in the mantle estimates range from 1/4 to 4 times the amount in the oceans, citing a source from 2006. This differs from the article on the "Water distribution on Earth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_Earth's_mantle, which confidently states the amounts are equal, based on a more recent source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_Earth%27s_mantle#cite_note-crockett-15) Is that estimate more reliable because it is more recent, such that equality is now the correct estimate, and if so should this article be updated to match that one? 98.244.76.229 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC) 98.244.76.229 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question. The source used here is a review article that reports a range of estimates from different sources using different methods, while the more recent article is a single estimate that explictly makes a variety of assumptions. Also, in a quick scan I couldn't even find this estimate in the research article itself, while in the link you gave it's an informal statement by the lead author. So I think it would be premature to change the information in this article before the new article is discussed in another review. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)