Talk:Magmatic underplating

Taylor's Critique

In your opening paragraph you talk about underplating occuring at the moho so with your image you could possibly label it. I like how you gave real world examples at the end. It may be good to add a few more sources so that there are more than one citation per section. You did a good job of bulking it up since your rough draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.236.136 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cindy's Critique

This is a great improvement from your initial draft, good work! But of course there are still things that can be tweaked. First, I would consider digitizing the image (as Logan had also suggested). However, I would recommend you use CorelDraw. You can get it free on Tigerware and if you watch the first 2 7-minute videos you'll know EVERYTHING you need to digitize your image. It's very easy to use. Remember you're going to be graded on this image, make it a bit more presentable! Also, add a description to go with your image. Second, in general your layout is organized but I think it can be adjusted. I think that "Denudation," "Magma Storage" and "Assimilation" sections can be subsections of "Effects". Your description of magmatic intrusions can be another subsection under "Effects". It's a minor change but I think it would better organize your page. Third, from my understanding of the wiki presentation given at the beginning of the semester, each line on wikipedia should be cited (ideally). You have about one citation per section, I would assume that you are doing that because all of the context in that section came from the one source you are citing. However, I would just add citations to each sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinColon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Logan's Comments

Sean, your page has a lot of information and seems to be organized fairly well. There are a few things I would change and they are listed below:

1. First off, it seems like your image was drawn using colored pencils and then scanned into your computer. If I were you, I would try to digitally trace your image in adobe illustrator. It is rather easy to do, and there are TONS of youtube videos that can teach you basic to more advanced techniques in illustrator. Adobe illustrator is a very powerful tool that can only add to your page. It will make your image more scientific and professional looking, while clearing it up and making it easier to understand.I would also put your image in a box on the right hand margin of the page. It will only help your layout seem more organized.

2. Secondly, as I read through your page I come across words that I vaguely know because I am a geologist, but if I wasn't I would not know what they mean. I would advise you to bracket-link many more geologic words. The linking of scientific words/topics will only help the reader to expand their understanding of your page through the ability to quickly and easily look up topics they don't know. Again, this is a tool that will only help you to help the reader understand what you are trying to explain.

3. Your magma composition section seems a little disorganized, not because of your content, but really just because of your layout. If I were you I would change up the font size and boldness to help make them stand out. It will only be easier on the reader's eyes.

4. Take out the side notes, and foot notes telling people that there will be more to come. Obviously we all know that all of us will be adding more to our pages, but it also takes away from the page itself. Would you write that on a rough-draft of an essay or research paper in English? Or on your ig/met Taos project or Pet rock? Just something to consider.

5. Lastly there are a few grammatical errors but nothing you can't handle. Good work and I'm sure it will only get better.

Corey's review of Sean's draft

Hey Sean!

So, there are a few things I think you should think about fixing:

1. When you talk about topics I don't think you should say "according to Marshak" etc etc. This is good for a scientific paper, but on Wikipedia I think it is more appropriate that you just use those little numbered citations that link down to the source at the bottom of the page. If you fix that, I think your intro is pretty good, though it could perhaps be a little simpler and to the point. The intro is a very general thing, for people who may or may not have a good understanding of geology.

2. Throughout your page you need to make links to other pages. The way to go about doing this is by putting double brackets on either side of a word, for example mafic.

3. The evidence section confuses me a little bit. I think you should denote the three different lines of evidence with numbers, like Logan did on his page. It will be much clearer that way. Also, you have sentences in quotes, but you don't say who said the quotes. I think you should just forget about the quotes and paraphrase in your own words that are hopefully slightly simpler than what you have in quotes. I, for one, am totally clueless about what the gabbro fractionation line of evidence is or how it relates to magmatic underplating.

4. After the evidence section, the organization doesn't make a whole ton of sense to me. Maybe, instead of what you have, you could have three separate sections that explain the three different lines of evidence more fully? Also, I think it might be a good idea to turn the magma composition section into an image. It would be fairly simple, just a bunch of boxes with differing amounts of minerals drawn and/or listed for each of the compositions. Then, you could just refer to the figure in your sections if you need to.

5. I think your last section, which relates underplating to volcanic arcs, is good. It probably be expanded on a little bit, but it's a good closing paragraph.

6. You probably need a few more sources.

7. I think you need to make your image a thumbnail, so that it is smaller and sits on the right side of the page. If you copy and paste what I have for my images on my page, and then just put your file name for the picture instead of what I have, you should be good to go.

Peace! Cshirc1 (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)cshirc1 aka Corey

Stephen

1)If you hand drew that image that's pretty impressive. 2)I forgot to do the whole in page citation too so don't feel bad 3)Probably need to beef it up some more but I think you already knew that with the more to come notes. 4)I have something in my article about underplating removing rock so there may be another aspect you could talk about where it also destrutive, unless i understood it wrong which has happened before. 5)Add a title.

Stephen Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed16 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Graeme's comments

• Magma Composition section does not explain how this is evidence for underplating. Someone else said the assimilation was bogus and did not actually happen much.
• there is also neutral buoyancy. Perhaps for sills this is important. For underplating is this a giant sill?
• Cooling: still there is no connection with your topic. "way faster" sounds a bit colloquial for the article content. There should be some mathematical models for this, so can you please talk about it?
• Good to note the comments above about the image. As others noted you should be making this a thumb. But I will also note that you should upload it as large as you can (2000 pixels wide is good) and resize it as it is used. As it stands it is very hard to read the tiny writing, but some of your earlier uploads are a good size. For this sort of diagram the .svg format is best but if your drawing package cannot hand that then a .png will do. I see good use of colour and patterns.
• More diagrams would be good to illustrate your evidence.
• I want to know more about transformation into continental lithosphere. And does this underplating occur in places apart from island arcs?
• Is there any geophysical evidence for currently active underplating?

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonnie's Critique

Perhaps the Stars,Planets and Moons are Protons,Neutrons and Electrons within some immensely vast living and breathing being and we are so small in comparison to the mysterious void of ancient light all around us...

The Atomic structure of Atoms seem very much the same as the way that Stars,Planets And Moons orbit eachother...

What we have named Pulsars and Quasars might actually be Neural Synapses,nerve impulses passing from one neuron to another...

There are billions of Comets and they could be this living beings thought signals travelling from its brain to another part of its body...

Perhaps this being has not yet fully matured and is still growing as the Universe appears to be expanding outwards in all directions...

Maybe there exists more than one living being both male and female and the different Galaxies could be the seperate bodies of different beings and when they interact with eachother galaxies collide...

What we perceive as Suns going Nova,could actually be the electrical stimulations these beings feels while experiencing orgasms together as they make love...

Everytime another Universe is born into existence,a female being is giving birth to her baby,another universe and her birth canal is the singularity within a Black Hole...

We may exist as the living reflections of one of these beings dreams and nightmares and the entire history of Earth and our whole existence,may be the result of one of them dreaming one single dream and when this being awakens,we may exist no more,like turning out a light,or blowing out a flame...

This being may very well be a living reality,the Ultimate Truth revealing what we really are and yet nothing lasts forever and so someday these beings will die... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renuzitholiday (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

John's Feedback

Found the evidence section sort of incoherent. You listed some evidence, but there's a lot of quotation and I don't really know how that stuff evidences underplating. Effects section is good, but aren't effects evidence? Is denudation a wave function? This seems to all be evidence. Info is all there, I just don't know about the arrangement. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geologian (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike's comments

Just some thoughts on reading this through:

• Your evidence section concentrates too much on a single example I think, there is very good evidence of underplated bodies beneath many volcanic margins from wide-angle reflection and refraction data, e.g. Barton & White 1995 Watts & Fairhead 1997 Voss & Jokat 2006and there's a fascinating discussion about the presence or otherwise of an underplated lower crustal body on the Voring Margin in Norway e.g. Ebbing et al. 2006 + about 50 other papers

• I know that the diagram is schematic, but I find a volcano with a height that exceeds the thickness of the crust a bit distracting and some of the labelling is difficult to read

• I'm still a bit unclear as to why there's a section on Assimilation in the article - the section doesn't fully explain the relevance, because crust-mantle mixing is not mentioned elsewhere in the article

Mikenorton (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy's comments

It's been a while since you asked me for comments, but they are finally here:

1. The grammar and clarity, in general, needs work. When you get a chance, try to read through the sections and think about how you are saying what you are saying as well as what your "take-away message" is and how each piece of information you provide leads to this - and try to read as someone who doesn't have your knowledge about magmatic underplating.
2. You should make clear why each piece of information given in the "Evidence" section really is evidence for magmatic underplating. Doing so, I think, will allow you to more clearly tell the scientific story. As it stands, I had a difficult time understanding this section.
3. The "Effects" section could well be renamed something like "Observations" or "Case studies", with the text broken into paragraphs. The text here is much easier to follow than that in the "Evidence" section.
4. Denudation - seems that this could be lumped in with the "effects" as another study of underplating. Right now, the headings are broken down into conceptual themes, while the text is more about regional studies. It is unclear here whether you are truly talking about denudation, or just about rock and/or surface uplift.
5. Magma storage - quick, to the point. Good section.
6. Assimilation - magmatic underplating currently is an aside here, while it should be the focus. The info is good, and could be rearranged.

Those are my thoughts, fairly briefly - hope they help. Awickert (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Denudation section - denudation presented as a wave

How can denudation have a wavelength or an amplitude? It is not a wave it is a process. Please clarify. MimiKal797 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@MimiKal797

I also found this quite puzzling. Angiest (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)