User talk:Beauh2/sandbox

Critiquing Articles

Plate Tectonics In the first Wikipedia article about Plate Tectonics I learned that the movement of plates range from zero to 100mm per year. It turns out oceanic crust is more dense than continental crust due to its different composition. I learned about Alfred Wegener's contributions to plate tectonics and theories about the mechanics of them. I thought it was interesting that he was a meteorologist but able to come up with these geological ideas. During the first half of the 20th century only two types of crust were acknowledged, sial which meant continental and sima which was oceanic.

As I was reading this page I found it to be very informative and contained a lot of material about plate tectonics. The references for each fact were reliable and I felt 90% of the content was relevant to the topic but there were a few times I read something and did not see how it pertained to the topic. Some paragraphs were distracting because they went on about theories then the next sentence would say how it changed and that it was irrelevant.

Convergent Boundary

In the second article on convergent margins I learned that is also known as the destructive plate boundary. The pressure in the mantle causes the crust to uplift and create mountains. This subduction usually occurs where there are lots of earthquakes and volcanic activity. I also learned some examples of convergent boundaries is the Marian Trench which I am not sure how that is correlated but Wikipedia said it so it must be true.

While reading this article I noticed they didn't reference some their statements appropriately. For an article talking about convergent boundary they mention divergent and transform which I related but I do not think it was necessary to include where they did. The reference list was not very detailed for the amount of information they had and it was formatted weird. The Sub header topics seem to be distracting and interesting but not super relevant. I felt it took away from the main purpose. It needs more information. There is more you can say about this geologic process.


4/3 Assignment - Nice work taking notes and using your sandbox! I would recommend using the user page for your notes - but either works! EKM2018 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
4/7 Assignment - Nice work also adding to content/citation on a page! Don't forget your chances for extra credit! EKM2018 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
4/10 Assignment - Nice job picking a topic and writing about it in your sandbox. Do you have any ideas on sources? Keep that in mind! EKM2018 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
4/21 Assignment - You have a good list of sources, but your citations do look a little wonky. Are you using the citation tool? This should help others access them, both on the article's talk page and for Will and I to give you feedback. Do you have any non-journal articles? Finding sources will help you outline your sections as well as help you figure out what other sources you need. (+1.5 extra credit) EKM2018 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
4/28 Assignment - Your "lead" section isn't really a full paragraph with complete sentences. Use the sources you have to expand the outline you made, creating headers in your sandbox and also brainstorming what figures you will need. EKM2018 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
5/3 Presentation Feedback - Be clear when describing the surrounding plate boundaries for this plate. What is the fate of the plate? Ultimately shrinking or growing? Make your headers short and concise (i.e. History, Tectonics, Geology). Know any other specifics - plate thickness, speeds (online tools can help with this)? Why is the neighboring trench so deep? You might not need to go into this because you could link to the trench... Looking good and think you have a lot of potential with this page! EKM2018 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes - I think Will has some good notes on how you can improve the outline for this page. It looks like you need to do some expanding and make your writing into complete prose, using and citing your sources. You look like you have a good amount of starting material but you just need to make it coherent and organized. DEFINITELY make sure you are citing your sources! Everything you write should be referenced, either at the end of the line or the beginning/end of the paragraph! I would recommend picking one source to start with, taking notes on what you can use from it that would fit within the outline Will made, and then do the same for each of your sources. That way you can feel systematic and not overwhelmed and get something down for people to peer review. Please let me know if you want to meet to discuss further! EKM2018 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
5/26 Assignment - Second Draft Notes - This needed A LOT of work with wording and organization. I made a lot of edits, bolded words I changed, striked out things I think should change - all things you should edit and improve. I left a lot of comments for things I think you should change on your own. Good figure and good information but I think you could have done more to go into deal and explain this more. Let me know if you have any questions with these edits! Get edits from Will, fix the page according to his and mine and then you can post to the main page. EKM2018 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback

You have a really interesting topic. Can you format you references in a accessible format and identify the key point for each. For the time being, you could just paste in the citation but it is way easier just to use the cite tool in visual editing and then Wikipedia will create the complete citation for you. This was covered in a couple of the trainings. Once you have done this I can give you some comments.

I did find the following page https://tectonicsofasia.weebly.com/marianas-plate.html which is a good resource.

What sections will you article have?

William Wilcock (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft Feedback

I think you need to put more thought into your sections because it is not obvious how they are linked to your sources. I would suggest something like

Lead paragraph - the one on the current page is not bad

Morphology and Structure - what is the plate made of, what features are there on the seafloor.

Geological history

Eastern convergent boundary (Mariana Trench has a good page you can cross reference)

Western divergent boundary (Mariana trough has a good page you can cross-reference)

William Wilcock (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

M.A. Benson peer review

Hi Beau,I really liked you article, great job! There are some minor grammar, punctuation, and rewording comments in the page itself in your sandbox. You should be able to see them when you go into edit mode. I have a few suggestions, that you can take or leave as you want. It looks like you are still working on the writing, based on an unfinished sentence in the geology section. It looks like you will add your citations as you complete it. Just a future suggestion that it's usually easier to keep track of your citations if you put them in the text as you write, instead of having to go back later and remember which source goes with which fact. With that being said, everybody writes differently, so if your system works then stick with it. Also, you have so many fun Wikilinks possibilities, like ultramafic peridotite, which you can add! The section I am curious to know more about is the 'Boundary' section. Maybe there's more you can add about what the boundaries can tell us about geologic processes, or how the trench shape relates to plate movement? Overall, I found this to be a good unbiased article! ErraticGeologist (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Review (5/22)

I think you have the basis for a good page but it is hard to review because you are not citing your sources in line for each statement / group of statements. This is really easy to do with the Visual Editing Citation tool. It is not sufficient to just list all your sources at the end. You also need to do a bit of reorganization so that headings align with content.

• General Comments
  • Cite your sources
  • Do a more complete job of linking to other Wikipedia articles for the first use of every technical term/process and geographic/geological feature names. This takes a while but improves readability

• Opening paragraph - well written but some of it belongs in the Boundary section. How big is the plate? Are there other key facts that you amplify in the following sections that should be here.

• History Origin
  • This section is a bit short. When and why did the Mariana plate break off the Philippine plate. you need to explain that it is a result of the formation of a back arc spreading area. There is a good wikipedia page on the Mariana Trough which you can cite.

• Plate Movement
  • This section seems to have nothing to do with plate movement. "Geological Features" would be a better title
  • This is a paper on a tectonic plate so rather than inserting your own explanation from scratch of hydration melting, link to the appropriate wikipedia pages (e.g., "Continental Arc" and "Flux Melting")

• Boundary
  • Some of this section seems to be mostly "Plate Motions". A lot of the description of the boundary is in the opening paragraph.
  • "As you move toward the south the geomorphology begins to get complicated because the boundary starts to look more like a transformation rather then convergence" I think "transformation" should "transform fault" and "then convergence" should be "than a convergent boundary" Which side of the plate are you referring to?
  • " This unique and complex boundary continues to tells us more about this geological process. The shape of the trench is related to the plate movement." These sentences do not tell us much. What is "this geological process"? How is the shape of the trench related to plate movement?

• Geology
  • Has an incomplete sentence at the end.
  • Most of this appears to belong with geological features while "The northern subduction zone is expanding by rifting while the southern contains a strike slip fault." appears to be related to the boundaries or needs more explanation. So I think this section could be merged into others.

• Future of the plate
  • This section is hard to follow and needs to be simplified. What is the source(s) of this information. I need that to suggest edits.

William Wilcock (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Review (6/2)

I have gone through your article in the sandbox and added a few more comments ontop of Emma's.

I agree with all of Emma's comments and I think you need to work on clarity.

It seems to me that you are mixing up in several places, arc volcanism and back arc spreading volcanism. I am not sure if it is a poor choice of wording on your part or understanding. You might want to check out the Wikipedia pages on Volcanic Arc and Back arc basin, particularly the latter which includes a nice cross section that shows the difference.

I think you should improve your figure - there is no scale, color bar or lat/lon labels and the blue-only color scale makes stuff hard to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Wilcock (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)