User talk:Seiji34/sandbox

Just Testing

Please make a section for your feedback so it shows up nicely in the table of contents :)

--Seiji34 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TA Feedback

4/3 Assignment - Looks like you got the training done but didn't take notes in your sandbox! Don't forget about these parts of the assignment - the content will help you apply the skills! (-2 points) EKM2018 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4/7 Assignment - Nice job getting the training done and adding content/citation! Don't forget extra credit opportunities! EKM2018 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4/10 Assignment - You picked a topic but didn't write anything in your sandbox about it! (-2 points) Do you have any ideas on sources, what you will contribute, what it needs? These are important things to think about when planning the page you will add to! EKM2018 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4/21 Assignment - Nice list of sources! I do think you could find some good non-journal sources from government or university sites (http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/driving_forces_basic.htm) that could fulfill general definitions. Nice job adding this list to the topic's talk page as well as properly citing and putting down comments for each source. EKM2018 (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4/28 Assignment - Nice start to your draft. I think you could start a larger outline based on the sources you have found so far, and use that to stay organized and know what you are eventually trying to add as a whole. As a work in progress I understand the more note format, but try to remember that we will eventually want things in a paragraph format that has a good flow both within and between sections. I like you organization so far but I definitely think there are more sections that you could add! Also think about figures you would want to put in! EKM2018 (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5/3 Presentation Feedback - Can you find articles about situations where ridge push plays a dominant force/role? I.E. the motion of the Nazca plate. I think you could really expand mechanics as well as talk about opposing/counter forces! These are VERY important (drag, friction, SLAB PULL) and how important they are thought to be relatively to ridge push. Also try to keep your headers concise! Wikipedia is all about keeping things pretty minimalist and easy to follow. Nice work picking a relevant topic! EKM2018 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes - Really nice work so far! I think all of Will's comments are very helpful and will make for good edits to improve your draft. I think you writing is very strong and clear, but maybe need to be verified and cleaned up a little bit more based on Will's notes. I also think you can link a lot more terms to pages - like slab pull! You could even use this page as a reference for how you want to format your page and incorporate an equation from Turcotte and Shubert (I also have a copy - I can bring it to class and show it to you, and you can either borrow it or I can scan in the pages for you). EKM2018 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5/26 Assignment - Second Draft Notes - Since you took your page live (which is great!) I'm giving you your edits here only. Overall good length. Well cited with links to other pages and nice concise, clear writing. Very good figures! I do have a couple comments that I am going to break up by section. Overall I think you are VERY close to being done in my opinion, just do these things to clean it up! Great work - it was hard to find edits!
Mech. - I'd expand this sentence with "...tectonic plate spreading and relatively shallow decompression melting." I'd reword end of the sentence about creating ridge from relatively low old and high young with "...producing the mid-ocean ridge morphology" so it's clearer.
Grav. Model - 1st sentence is a run on, break it up at the ";"
Opp. Forces - "resisted by resistance" should be reworded :)
Notable - Nazca and South America plates aren't that small. I would reword the first sentence even though you do clarify that the small slabs was meant for adjacent slabs to South American plate. It is confusing how it is now. Let me know if that makes sense and if you need help rewriting it! EKM2018 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification? Notable Qualifications

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the Notable Qualifications section. While the South American Plate isn't small, my sources indicate that the subducting slabs attached to it at its boundaries with the Carribean and Scotia plates are. Similarly, the Nazca Plate's slab is extremely young. I thought "plates with particularly small or young subducting slabs" was sufficiently descriptive, but if there's a better way to say it then I'd be happy to revise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seiji34 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Feedback

Sources Feedback

This is a great topics and you have a lot of sources (more than enough) and have made a good start. I think your lead paragraph is a little of track in that it focuses too much on the history of ridge push (its role in the development of plate tectonics) which should be in the section under that name, rather than a succinct statement of what it is which would basically involve editing the lead paragraph of the current wikipedia article to improve clarity and writing.

Your final sentence of the lead paragraph states "Most current models accept that ridge push is primarily the result of a rigid lithosphere sliding down the raised asthenosphere below mid-ocean ridges, allowing molten mantle material to rise to the surface in its place, although the relative importance of ridge push compared to other driving forces is still debated." I do not think this is correct - there is only one currently accepted model of ridge push

I think the section on the Mechanics of ridge push should include a diagram. There is a simple one in your Turcotte and Schubert (2002) citation and also some equations that give its magnitudes. I wonder whether this section should be first.

I think you should have a section discussing the importance of ridge push relative to other forces on plates which can take the significance part of your "history and significance" section. William Wilcock (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Feedback 5/8/18

You have put a lot of work into this and it is quite impressive.

I am not sure I would note in the lead paragraph that Ridge Push was not part of Alfred Wegner's hypothesis since I am not sure that is critical to know.

Your mechanics section notes that it needs further editing and I agree. Working on getting a good plain language description of the mechanics of ridge push is important. You can then go into more details

You have a statement "As molten magma rises at a mid-ocean ridge, it heats the rocks around it." which is misleading. It is the mantle that upwells beneath mid ocean ridge that brings hot material close to the surface (it is all hot) and so even if the mantle did not melt, ridges would be elevated. Melting and elevation are both consequence of upwelling of hot mantle and so it is not the heat expelled my the magma that causes ridges to be elevated.

There is a nice discussion of ridge push at http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/web%20pages/Driv_tectonics.html which explains why it is misnamed. Don't plagarize it but the description of the mechanism is worth reading. It is also worth getting into your article the idea that the name Ridge Push is misleading.

It might be worth looking at the Turcotte and Schubert reference 12 in more detail - I can loan you a copy if you wish. The math is complicated but the basic concept of why there is a net horizontal pressure force when the ridge is elevated is not. Also it is a force that not only acts at the ridge but all the way until the seafloor elevation stops decreasing. Again ridge push is a misleading name

I am not sure your Notable Exceptions section is correctly named.

A lot of the text is underlined which makes it hard to read.

Adding figure or two illustrating the mechanism would be useful

William Wilcock (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Feedback_MA Benson

This might seem like a cop out, but I am legitimately having problems finding issues with your article. I found it to be informative and well written, great job! With that being said, I do not have much experience in the subject, so will defer to William's comments about tweaking the science a bit. I'm not sure if anybody has studied this, and I think it might be outside the scope of your page, but I wonder if the ridge push anomaly at the Nazca Plate could be related to the flat slab subduction caused by the Nazca Ridge? ErraticGeologist (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

And also sorry, I wasn't really thinking of my reviewers' job. At the moment I believe the mechanics section is corrected; William's feedback was for a previous version adapted from the original article that I have since replaced.

As for the Nazca Plate, I would guess that you are probably correct; you state in your draft that the Nazca Plate is only 45 Ma and experiences a buoyant force because of it that results in flat slab subduction. My sources tell me that ridge push is abnormally important there because the young material produces relatively little slab pull, which would make sense if a plate wasn't fully subducting, so the two phenomena probably stem from the same source. I might add that connection to my article!

--Seiji34 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Sonam's Peer Review

Hi Seiji, first off, I have to say that it looks like you have used your sources very well, making sure the information that you got were reliable by using multiple sources. The diagram is also a nice addition.

The only thing I would like to suggest is to edit the section title of Significance or maybe split that section into two. The beginning part of that section talks about the history of the different ideas that people had while the second part (Notable Qualifications) talks about the effects of the push. I think it would be best to have the first section inside the History section that you already have and then just have the second part be Significance or the Effects.

Your page has a lot of information and they are very well explained. I wasn't able to find things that you could fix aside from that last section. Good job. Tenzinsonam995 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I see your point about the significance section, the first portion is quite distinct from the second section. I'm not going to put the first paragraph into the History section because it is all about the significance and is not all about the history of ridge push; most of it is actually about how other driving forces were considered predominant, so I don't want it in the History of ridge push. I might separate the second paragraph into an Opposing Forces subsection.

--Seiji34 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Final Review 5/31

This is really clear and in good shape

The opening paragraph is great. Explains the origin of the odd name

The only change I can see is really minor. For the text "Mid-ocean ridges are long underwater mountain chains that occur at divergent plate boundaries in the ocean, where new oceanic crust is formed by upwelling magma as a result of tectonic plate spreading and relatively shallow (above ~60 km) decompression melting.[1] The upwelling magma" - change both instances of "magma" to "mantle". The mantle upwells and undergoes partial melting.

William Wilcock (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]