Talk:Salt deformation

Reflection notes for the third draft

I found it hard to write a neat and clear introduction section. I spent a lot of time on it. I asked several friends to look and the introductions and they thought it is clear enough now. Through the Wikipedia project, I think there are a few important things we should keep in mind:
1. The importance of writing an effective and clear first sentence, as people generally will not read the whole page but just skim through it.
2. Use diagram to tell the story
3. Remember to cite everything

I am glad that my page finally goes alive! I hope someone would be well informed and think that it is useful after reading my page! As a frequent Wikipedia reader, I never thought that someday I would become one of the editors. Now I know that every single page could involve in huge efforts, and I will remember to appreciate the contributions from other Wikipedians.

Myip003 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Blessing

Good work! 1. Under the Salt deformation mechanism, it would have been more appropriate to make sketches of structures if possible 2. Under the thermal conductivity of salt, the reason for comparing salt and shale conductivity was not justified in the statement. Why should anyone bother about that of shale?. I think if you consider geophysical signal relevance since clay is generally known to be highly conductive. 3. I think if you make this image: Kuh-e-Namak, also known as Dashti salt dome as the first image or any image of rock salt deformation; it will be most appropriate since your focus is on salt deformation. 4. You need to edit the references by correcting the dates. That is why you still have them in redBlessingAdeoti (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Anyang

Nice and clear structure! Here are some of my suggestions:

1. Unique physical and chemical properties of salt promoting its deformation: ADD low viscosity (which is relatively important). LOW STRENGTH is a bit ambiguous, since it often links to brittleness (easy to break but not easy to flow).

2. Need citation for "rock salt density ~2.2g/cm3, metamorphosed to greenschist at 6-8 km".

3. "Thermal conductivity" section is not clear. 1) Thermal expansion coefficient determines the large salt expansion with respect to temperature increase (not related to thermal conductivity at all); 2) Normally, low thermal conductivity leads to thermal convection (flow motion) due to its low efficiency in losing heat by conduction (not high thermal conductivity).

4. It will be better if you can explain the salt deformation mechanisms by figures.

5. The section on salt structure seems redundant since they are quite straightforward and you will introduce them in the next section.

Adayding (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Reflection notes for the second draft

I made some changes in the structure of the page and also I added the “Salt deformation mechanism” section. However, I found it quite difficult to explain to the general audiences without proper diagrams. Some diagrams should be added to this section later.

After submission of the first draft, I asked some of my friends and they told me that it is difficult for them to understand the term “salt structure”, therefore in my second draft, I tried to explain it in the introduction section, and also divided it into surface and underground when explaining their dynamics. I hope it helps.

Lastly, Graeme informed me that the use of Google Earth image is not appropriate in Wikipedia. I should check out and replace them with appropriate photos later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myip003 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reflection notes for the first draft

For the “Physical properties” section, I might not explain well to the public as the wording might be too technical. There is no figure in this section, making it harder to understand. For the last part, “Subaerial deformation”, the common uplifting motion of active salt glacier hasn’t been mentioned yet, and some cases about observations in nature should be included.

I spent a lot of time in the graphics and enjoyed so much in making them, as I believe when talking about deformation mechanisms, graphics often let people understand easier compare with text. However, I have asked some of my friends and they thought the last figure about deformation and recrystallization in different parts of a salt glacier is a bit confusing, they thought the topography was not shown clearly. I think I shall make some changes accordingly.

Overall, it was a fun experience switching from a reader to an editor of the Wikipedia. I hope somebody would enjoy reading my page!

Myip003 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Feedback from Ivan

Hi Michelle! These are some suggestions for your article:

• You could start your introduction with "Salt Deformation is...". You could also state the importance of this dynamic process.
• You could reorganise the headings. I noticed you used page titles instead of paragraphs.
• Some terms might be explained in too much detail. For example, the physical quantities is better to be attributed in the main salt article. You could reduce the background information or alternatively make an analog/diagram so you could strike the main issue directly in the rest of your article.
• In the opposite of Point 3, some technical terms might not be explained sufficiently. (1) You may need to explain jargons like slip with 1-2 sentences. (2) You could put in more hyperlinks for hydraulic head and subaerial etc. (3) You could even avoid using technical words or replace it with easier terms.
  

Cheers,
Ivancyyip (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Jupiter

Your page is clearly structured with a rich content and a clear illustration of pictures and diagrams.

Here are some suggestions:

1. You used blue in the diagrams to represent the salt layer and labelled it in the first two diagrams. But it will be better to label that in the following diagram also or just add "salt layer (blue)" in the caption. Your diagrams should be understandable alone, as people usually do not read the whole Wikipedia, but just a few sections or diagrams.

2. Some citations are missing, especially those supporting for numbers in your text (e.g. "rock salt is over 2.9 km at a thermal gradient of 30°C/km with viscosity below 1016 Pa.s").

3. You included mainly sketch diagrams to illustrate salt deformation. It may be good to also have more real picture of salt structures in your page, such as those in Salt dome and Salt glacier.

4. For some background information, e.g. about "salt" at the beginning, these can be omitted with a hyperlink, and replace with a precise explanation in the deformation part. You may want to just directly point out that salt deformation is special from rocks is because of its ability to flow like fluid at the very first line in the introduction. The same thing also applies to some of your following sections.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC) 

Peer review from Kevin

Hi Michelle,

Here are the suggestions:

1. Scale can be added to the photos (esp. The satellite image of Kuh-e-Namak). A bird view drawing might be added in assist with the explanation of this satellite image.

2. The physical properties of rock salt is written clearly. However, audience might not have an idea of what these numbers actually represents. It might be better if there’s a comparison of rock salt in relative to other well know rock/material to explain how its strain is affected by these physical properties.

3. Citations (if possible) can be added to the equation part.

4. Legend is missing in the GIF of reactive diapirism.

Cheers, Kevin Kevnmh (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Feedback back from Justin

Hi Michelle,

Here are the comments:

1. The equation should add numbers
2. The table within the Gravitational differential loading should have a title.
3. The figures should add number and cite them in the text to illustrate your idea.
4. Some citations are missing in the text, such as themral conductivity.
5. The citation style should change. The number [1] should be put after the full stop.
6. What's the position of thin-skinned extension? Is it the same as tensional stress?
7. Your mention that "it deforms distinctively in underground and subaerial environment" in the first part. I only see the subaerial environment deformation in the following text.

Cheers, Justin

Comments from Graeme

Please add references to each section and paragraph. Even if they are the same as the other references they will still be needed to tell where the information came from. Second, an image from Google Earth will not have an appropriate copyright to use here. This looks like a good topic. I am interested in solid flow in the case of solid nitrogen glaciers where I want to write more. For this there are three flow regimes. One is plastic deformation. But this is very close to the brittle failure point. There are two kinds of creep, one division based and one power flaw. But at this point my understanding is too poor to write yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Also File:Dashti salt dome satellite photo.png is a satellite photo that you claim as own work. Unless you own a satellite this seems very unlikely, so where did the image really come from? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rock salt: Salt in rock form or salt as found in and among rocks?

There is much in this article that rests upon comparison of rock salt (is it deliberate that the term halite is not used at all outside the intro?) with other rocks, but in the article halite (to which rock salt redirects) it is not regarded as a rock at all. Some sort of resolution of this seems necessary for the non-specialist reader (me, for example), especially if this is to appear on the Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)