User:Cherin105/Sunda Arc/Zwymmmm Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

[unfinished one]

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Cherin105
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Cherin105/Sunda Arc

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead introduces the article concisely.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

I feel excited for this article because it is well-written and well-organized, but some sentences are overly detailed. Here are my suggestions:

1) delete the ''According to the geodynamic studies, mid-oceanic ridge basalts (MORB) is the main lithology of the oceanic basin south of Sunda'' . Oceanic plate is mainly composed of MORB, so it is not needed to emphasis in here.

2) link the Miocene in ''The advent of this convergent plate boundary began in Early Miocene'' to its page in wikipedia. So readers will known the age of Miocene :)

3) add the depth in '' However, there appears to have a detachment of slab beneath Sumatra island '' is probably better. do you mean at 660 km?

4) change ''The advent of this convergent plate boundary began in Early Miocene. The Indo-Australia Plate is subducted beneath the Eurasia Plate with the dip angle ranging from 49 to 56 degree. '' into ''The Indo-Australia Plate is subducted beneath the Sunda and Burma plates with ~49-56 degree dipping angle beginning in the Early Miocene''. Because you mentioned the the Sunda and Burma plates in the Lead part, so we need to be consistent with the geological term through the article.

5) delete''Tsunami is originated by the disruption in the ocean that gives rise to a series of short-frequency wave, and this disruption may come from the earthquake, volcanic activity, or landslide etc.'', add ''Tsunami'' link to its wiki page.

6) add the wiki links of Quaternary and Tertiary in ''Volcanic rocks from Quaternary generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age.'' or 'Volcanic rocks from Quaternary (xx-xx Ma) generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age (XX-XXMa). Add the wiki links of calc-alkaline in '' The majority of basalts of the arc have calc-alkaline contents, except for some potassic lava production in East Java.''

7) Mark the Main-Arc Volcanism and Back-Arc Volcanism in the map.

8) change ''Major Islands and their volcanic history'' title into '''Major Islands' because some content is about deposit or chemistry features.

9) you have introduced the West Jave pretty good, only one suggestion is to delete '' Regarding to geothermal fields, the majority of those fields are located in West Java.''

10) ''Beneath Sumatra, the oceanic crust is about 30 kilometers depth.'' do you mean thickness? or the depth of the surface oceanic crust in the ocean?

Please do not be afraid of the above suggestions, they are just my personal opinions and you may have better ideas how to improve the paper.

(CHARIN) RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW -- Content

1) delete the ''According to the geodynamic studies, mid-oceanic ridge basalts (MORB) is the main lithology of the oceanic basin south of Sunda'' . Oceanic plate is mainly composed of MORB, so it is not needed to emphasis in here. --> (CHARIN) I still feel like it's needed to be said that it's MORB or at least a basalt for a broader audience. But I adjusted it to be more concise as following: Mid-oceanic ridge basalts (MORB) form most of the oceanic basin south of Sunda, according to geodynamic studies

2) link the Miocene in ''The advent of this convergent plate boundary began in Early Miocene'' to its page in wikipedia. So readers will known the age of Miocene :)

(CHARIN) Yes, it's very helpful. This is my adjustment: These plates began to converge in the Early Miocene .

3) add the depth in '' However, there appears to have a detachment of slab beneath Sumatra island '' is probably better. do you mean at 660 km?

(CHARIN) It's not at 660 km. The majority of slabs along Java is continuous down to 660, except the one beneath Sumatra. But I did modified the sentence as following: However, the slab appears to beak apart under Sumatra Island.

4) change ''The advent of this convergent plate boundary began in Early Miocene. The Indo-Australia Plate is subducted beneath the Eurasia Plate with the dip angle ranging from 49 to 56 degree. '' into ''The Indo-Australia Plate is subducted beneath the Sunda and Burma plates with ~49-56 degree dipping angle beginning in the Early Miocene''. Because you mentioned the the Sunda and Burma plates in the Lead part, so we need to be consistent with the geological term through the article.

(CHARIN) Yes, I agree. It's kinda confusing the way I paraphrased them. This is the sentence after the adjustment: The Indo-Australian Plate is subducting beneath the Eurasian Plate with the dip angle of 49-56 degrees

5) delete''Tsunami is originated by the disruption in the ocean that gives rise to a series of short-frequency wave, and this disruption may come from the earthquake, volcanic activity, or landslide etc.'', add ''Tsunami'' link to its wiki page.

(CHARIN) I cut that sentence entirely and add the link instead. Therefore this is the tsunami paragraph after the correction:

Tsunami on December 2004, Indian Ocean

In 2004, the tsunami in Indian Ocean was triggered by an earthquake of 9.15 magnitude near Sumatra Island. In Banda Aceh area, the tsunami height reached up to 35 meters, which surpassed value recorded prior to this event.

6) add the wiki links of Quaternary and Tertiary in ''Volcanic rocks from Quaternary generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age.'' or 'Volcanic rocks from Quaternary (xx-xx Ma) generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age (XX-XXMa). Add the wiki links of calc-alkaline in '' The majority of basalts of the arc have calc-alkaline contents, except for some potassic lava production in East Java.''

(CHARIN) This is very helpful. These are my corrections, which I didn't add the age because it might be confusing if it's the age range of Quaternary/Tertiary or the age range of the rock samples:

In addition, volcanic rocks from Quaternary generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age. The majority of basalts of the arc have calc-alkaline contents, except for some potassic lava production in East Java.  

7) Mark the Main-Arc Volcanism and Back-Arc Volcanism in the map.

(CHARIN) Good suggestion. I have to find figures that comply to Wiki's rules. I'm not sure if I can, but I will try my best.

8) change ''Major Islands and their volcanic history'' title into '''Major Islands' because some content is about deposit or chemistry features.

(CHARIN) I changed from "Major Islands and their volcanic history" to "Major Island".

9) you have introduced the West Jave pretty good, only one suggestion is to delete '' Regarding to geothermal fields, the majority of those fields are located in West Java.''

(CHARIN) Good suggestion. I deleted that sentence and then added some links to the key words. Now, this is what my West Java Paragraph looks like:

The volcanic activities in this region have began roughly since Pliocene or Pleistocene epoch. There are two major volcanic zones called the volcanic front (VF) and the rear arc (RA) with different chemical imprints.The geochemical study of major and trace elements and isotopic signatures of lava have confirmed the steady-state subduction and ongoing replenishment of magma for about 10 Ma. The volcanic rocks founded on West Java are dated back to the Eocene. The basement of West Java is continental lithosphere which can be inferred from crustal assimilation and contamination in volcanic rocks.  

10) ''Beneath Sumatra, the oceanic crust is about 30 kilometers depth.'' do you mean thickness? or the depth of the surface oceanic crust in the ocean?

(CHARIN) After the evaluation and my attempt to make the contents more concise, this is my paragraph after the modification:

Sumatra island is located on the southwest side of Sunda Arc. The main seismic zone of Sumatra is the Sumatra Fault System (SFS), which trends NW-SE. The subducting oceanic crust are dated to be approximately 50 to 90 Ma. A K/Ar study reveals that subducted-related magmatism in Sumatra started roughly in early Mesozoic according to the evidences derived from the plutonic body on Barisan Mountain . The key mineralization found on Sumatra are epithermal veins of Au, Ag, Zn, Pb, and other metals in which these ore bodies are correlated to arc volcanism and subvolcanism intrusive bodies.

- What I did is that I delete "Beneath Sumatra, the oceanic crust is about 30 kilometers depth" because the depth/thickness of oceanic crust seems like a general fact.

- I also delete "he geochemical signatures analyzed from rock samples at Semangko Bay, Southern Sumatra indicate the existence of small magmatic bodies with a strike of NW to SE. " because it simply tells readers that there's magma body beneath Sumatra, which seems redundant because the readers know that this is an island arc with volcanoes.

Please do not be afraid of the above suggestions, they are just my personal opinions and you may have better ideas how to improve the paper.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

Excellent.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Excellent!

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

Most content is well-organized. My advice is to make the logic between each sentence stronger by using "in addition, nevertheless".

(CHARIN) RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW -- Organization

• I'm not sure about what you meant by "logic". However, I think that adding some transition words into some sentences will definitely help with the transition and coherence of the overall content.
• 1. "Volcanic rocks from Quaternary generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age."
  • From this original sentence and from the overall paragraph, I added "In addition" to make it more coherent. --> "In addition, volcanic rocks from Quaternary generally show more enrichment in alkaline contents than those from Tertiary age "

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

It would be better to include the geological figure showing the just the shapes of Indo-Australian Plate, the Sunda and Burma plates. Like the one in Indian Plate#/media/File:IndianPlate.png, this is a wiki figure:)

The geography figure is good, but is it possible to find a better map? like map showing the Sumatra, Nusa Tenggara, and Java, the Sunda Strait and the Lesser Sunda Islands in different colors.

(CHARIN) RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW -- Image and Media

• Thank you for your comments! I agree with you on the map. I cannot find an image on the wiki site that best represent those area. It's kinda hard to find a map that shows all this area that do not come from soneone's paper. I will try (If applicable, I have to do more research on this) to use ArcGIS online to derive a better map. However, I'm not sure if a photo processed by ArcGIS online would consider to be my own work or not. But I'll definitely look into it.
• For the geologic map, similar to the geographic map, I cannot find a figure that is compliant to Wiki's rule.
• 11/16/2020 -- This is the geologic map that I complied on ArcGIS online using different layers of base maps. I think it would add more information to my page. Thank you for this suggestion.

  

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

The author used a lot of updated references

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

1) The sentences are well-written; The content is well-organized;

2) Although some sentences are overly-detailed, readers will gain a good background of the Sunda Arc after reading this article.

(CHARIN) RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW -- Overall Evaluation

• I agree with you that some of the sections are overly-detailed and not really coherent. Therefore, these are my adjustment.
  • 1. I cut this sentence --> "The chemical analyses of igneous rocks at back arc has shown a higher K₂O/Na₂O ratio in comparison to other part of Sunda Arc, which may indicate the deeper origin" <-- out of the volcanism section and modify the previous sentence to have this same piece of information. --> "Magma and lava appear to have originated from molten materials at a deeper part of the mantle as supported by a higher K₂O/Na₂O ratio in comparison to other part of Sunda Arc."
  • 2. I deleted these two sentences from the Sumatra section since they seem a bit redundant to state:
    • "Beneath Sumatra, the oceanic crust is about 30 kilometers depth" because the depth/thickness of oceanic crust seems like a general fact. - "The geochemical signatures analyzed from rock samples at Semangko Bay, Southern Sumatra indicate the existence of small magmatic bodies with a strike of NW to SE.
    • 3. I also adjusted and modified other sentences to make it more concise as stated in the content section already.