User talk:M.miller/sandbox
Matthew Gordon Feedback: Pali Dome
[edit]The information added was relevant and helped improve the quality of the article. However, the second sentence that you added doesn't flow well with the structure of the article. You could have placed your second line(third line in the article) elsewhere in the article or provided a transitional statement. I also believe that you could have expanded on the article a lot more. You did provide the minimum amount of information required, but the article could have been improved by talking more in depth about the unique land forms and ice drainage systems that the Cayley Volcanic Field has formed, or more specifically the Pali Dome volcano. Another thing you could have done to improve your article would be to talk about specific eruptions of the Pali Dome volcano, or whether or not it has been a dormant volcano. The last thing that could have been done to improve your article would be to relate the Pali Dome volcano and its activity to society.
````Matthew Gordon
Jeremy Gremillion Feedback
[edit]General improvements I noted while reading:
-"A dacite (dacite lava's viscosity is in between rhyolite and andesite[1]) dome rises 350 m..." The sentence, as it isn't focusing on dacite lava at all, but rather the domes and their locations and formation, should likely instead state such information in a separate sentence, rather than a parenthetical statement that breaks the flow of the sentence. In addition, unless this is information that is unique to this particular volcano, this information would likely be better placed in an article on volcanoes or lava (possibly even dacite lava specifically if it has its own page).
-In the main paragraph, you sort of divert the main message of the paragraph away from information on the Brothers Volcano and towards to creation and importance of the Black Chimneys. If the black chimneys are truly an important thing about this volcano and are synonymous with it in people's minds, you could mention the black chmineys briefly as part of the main introductory paragraph, but otherwise, all of this information could likely be moved to a section below simply titled "Environment" or something similar. Remember, the intro paragraph only needs to introduce the readers to the topic, and you can go into further detail about individual occurances and specific points in the subsections below.
-The monitoring sentence is barely sizeable and not specific. Either reference these "current expeditions" that it is proving interesting to and why, or find some other way to add to the section, as currently the section on Monitoring is literally only mentioning how they aren't being monitored, which is a self-defeating point.
Falgaia (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Mtiggl1 Feedback: Brothers Volcano
[edit]You do a great job introducing the idea of the "black smoker" chimneys, however as a reader who is less informed on the topic I find that the article may benefit from some more clarity on what exactly it means to be a "black smoker" chimney. Expand on the term "black smoker" to add some clarity. I edited some minor grammatical errors. I would consider making the section on the "black smoker" chimneys a separate section as the few sentences that you added on these "black smoker" chimneys are prominent and separate from the rest of the section to the point where they could stand well on their own. This could lead to more clarity for the reader by establishing this as a separate component of the volcano. I believe that the information in the monitoring section could be put back with the information on the last eruption and the last expedition in 2007 because it continues on the idea stated in that paragraph. Overall, I think that you added interesting new information to this article that readers will benefit from as it expands our knowledge of the Brothers Volcano. Mtiggl1 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Mtiggl1
Bailey Tinsley Feedback: Rubus ellipticus
[edit]I thought your contribution was very informative. It relates perfectly to your lecture and I thought you did a good job relating this invasive species to society by talking about how people use it. I only have a few minor suggestions.
In the first paragraph I would suggest changing the word "reasons" to "purposes." I would also suggest fixing the citation in the second-to-last sentence in this paragraph (It is a space away from the period and is connected to the first word of the last sentence).
In the second paragraph I would suggest changing "have" to "has".
Lastly, I would suggest rewording the final sentence you added about its ability to regrow because it reads slightly awkward. I would also suggest giving some information as to why its root system allows it to regrow. Bailey.t (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)