Talk:Deep carbon cycle

Sesha's Peer Review
1. Lead section
 * Good job providing background about where the carbon cycle takes place and where evidence for the carbon cycle comes from
 * You state that the carbon cycle is an important process but you never say why in the lead paragraph
 * It feels like an overall explanation of what the carbon cycle is/what all the components of the carbon cycle are is missing
 * As someone coming in with no background about the carbon cycle, I am a bit confused as to what the basics of the carbon cycle are and what its purpose is
 * First sentence states how deep carbon cycling is not well-researched, consider leading with what IS known about the carbon cycle/why it is important rather than starting with saying there is not a lot of research

2. Structure
 * Sections are well organized
 * Sections are easy to follow and I appreciate you separating them by region of the Earth's interior (carbon in the lower mantle and carbon in the core)
 * Good wrap-up sentence at the end of the article

3. Coverage
 * The length of each section seems to correspond well with its importance to the carbon cycle
 * Good job emphasizing carbon in the lower mantle because it seems like the presence of the carbon cycle in the lower mantle has the most experiments and supporting evidence
 * I am curious (and this may be too hard to find online) whether there are researched perspectives countering the presence of iron carbides and other forms of carbon in the Earth's core

4. Content
 * Great job providing lots of evidence and experiments surrounding the carbon cycle
 * Good job writing neutral content for the most part, a couple instances where your perspective as the author comes through too prominently (e.g. "it is nonetheless an incredibly important process") and should be supported with either one of your references or with more details explaining the subjective statement
 * I am still left curious as to the reason carbon cycling occurs in the lower mantle/core and why it is important. Is it because carbonates at those depths result in the formation of elements like magnesite and graphite? You allude to that in your third paragraph, but consider stating it directly along with other roles carbon plays in Earth's interior.
 * When you state the names of researchers like Elizabeth Cottrell, Katherine Kelley, Rajdeep Dasgupta without saying who they are, they don't carry the same authority they would if you introduced them along with their titles/roles
 * Some of your statements can be explained further and in a bit more depth if possible:
 * For example your statement "carbon tetrahedrally bonding to oxygen...signifying...drastic changes in carbonate compounds' properties in the lower mantle" is broad and doesn't explain WHAT changes are seen or the significance of these changes
 * Another example is when you state "large concentrations of carbon frequently find their way back to the lithosphere" but as a reader I am left wondering HOW that carbon makes it back to the lithosphere and how they rise because of mantle plumes (if this is not yet known then consider stating that)
 * I believe Wikipedia discourages the use of quotes from other sources and prefers you to state the information in your own words, so consider not using quotes like the one from Professor Jackie Li (I think it would not be too difficult to state that in your own words without quoting it)

5. Reliable sources
 * Great job attributing your statements across all of your sources rather than only relying heavily on a couple sources
 * Sources seem reliable, with many coming from reputable scientific journals or published and well-researched articles

-General comments: -Grammar: make sure you consistently capitalize "Earth," some small grammar issues throughout such as "as they descends into the mantle" or "high pressures causes carbon" -Consider adding in another visual/image that could accompany your section on carbon in the lower mantle, since that section fills up the bulk of your Wikipedia article (maybe something related to how carbonates undergo changes in the lower mantle)

Smcminn1234 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Reflection About Peer Review
Sesha's comment really helped me continue to develop my draft, especially with making my writing clear and coherent. She made a great point about the need for a more thorough introduction about the importance of the Deep Carbon Cycle in Earth processes, as well as adding a general account of the process for readers who might not have much familiarity with the carbon cycle. Furthermore, she provided great feedback about the content of my article. There were a couple points where I offered a claim without including evidence as to why, therefore making it seem like a very subjective claim purely based on my own opinion. Sesha also helped me realise that my content would seem more robust if I included researchers' and authors' credentials as I presented their work. Furthermore, I found her comments regarding my lack of explanation for some topics to be super helpful. For instance, tried to further explain the mechanisms and consequences of carbon tetrahedrally bonded to oxygen in the lower mantle. Lastly, I feel like the peer review process helped me fix some grammar errors and avoid direct quotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Accordingly, I think most of the changes I've correspond to attempts to provide as much context and explanations as possible. I've tried to add a more comprehensive introduction, in addition to including more background information about some of the more technical parts of the article. Going forward, I definitely think I need to continue to improve my context. I still am worried that a general reader will not understand some of the article's content, and I would like to make everything I write as clear as possible. In many cases, I'm not sure how to make the content more accessible for readers, as the sources I obtained the information from explains it in a very scholarly and technical manner. Thus, my greatest goal is to take this technical content and make it as clear as possible for readers without any background in the article's geological processes. Moreover, I'd love some feedback regarding whether or not the images I added in response to Sesha's peer review improve the article. Finally, something I struggled with in response to the peer review was finding contrasting perspectives. To illustrate, I'm finding it difficult to find scholarly sources arguing that there is no carbon in the core. I feel that doing so would make my article more neutral and comprehensive in terms of perspectives included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sesha's Second Peer Review
Your Wikipedia article is looking fantastic! I appreciate that you took the time to incorporate my comments from the previous peer review. Your opening sentence feels much stronger now and provides more emphasis on the importance of deep carbon cycling. Your article's concluding sentence is also strong in that it addresses what is not known but also what recent trends suggest, summarizing the different sections of your article. I also noticed a huge improvement in the context and background information you provide in your article. Coming in with little previous knowledge regarding the deep carbon cycle, I am able to understand your article and the technical aspects of it. You mentioned wanting feedback about whether more context is necessary, but I feel that you have succeeded in adding in sufficient background information on the topics you discuss. I felt that the background you provide on carbonates is vastly more clear. I also think the "Movement of oceanic plates" graphic supports and further explains how carbon moves beneath the Earth's surface, which I found very helpful. In regards to your point about finding scholarly sources stating that there is no carbon in the core, I think this is not necessary. If current research supports carbon existing in the core, then I think stating so is valid and trying to find evidence against this research might actually make your article less neutral (because then you are essentially fishing for contrasting perspectives).

A few grammatical issues I noticed are as follows: -2nd paragraph of the article, you say "deep earth" in one sentence and then "deep Earth" in the next sentence (keep this consistent) -2nd paragraph under "Carbon in the Lower Mantle" has "they descends" instead of "they descend" -In the last sentence of the article, you say "seem point to" instead of "seem to point to"

One suggestion I think you might want to consider is your use of authors' names and quotations. I spoke with Wendy after class this week and asked whether it is better to include or leave out specific names of authors whose research you mention. She told me that it was better to simply cite the research or article supporting the statements you make and keep specific names of authors out of the body of the article. I believe Wikipedia feels similarly about not including quotes, although I think it is also alright if you choose to keep them in. Overall, I think your Wikipedia article is nearly complete. It is well-researched, well written, and approachable and comprehendible as an outside reader. Great work making edits and improving your article! Smcminn1234 (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

--Wendymao (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Benji,

Page looks very good. I like the figures and how the content is set-up. A few small comments:

1) In the first sentence, instead of well-researched, I would say well understood (i realize when you say well-researched you mean there are not sufficient studies, but it could potentially be misread as saying the existing studies are not well done.

2) In the last sentence of the first section, I would add 'potential' in front of 'presence', since as you noted whether carbon is in the core is still very much up for debate.

3) In second section, I would just say 'In a 2011 study, carbonates were subjected...' rather than 'In 2011, a team of French scientists subjected carbonates' because not all of the researchers were french (although the work was conducted in french institutions).

4)The last sentence of that paragraph, "The presence of reduced, element forms like graphite in the 2011 study further displays that carbon compounds undergo reduction as they descend into the mantle." could be editted to "The presence of reduced, elemental forms of carbon like graphite would indicate that carbon compounds are reduced as they descend into the mantle."

5) First sentence of last section, "Although the presence of carbon in the Earth's deep interior is not known, recent studies suggest the core possessing large inventories of the element." could be editted to "Although the presence of carbon in the Earth's core is well-constrained, recent studies suggest large inventories of carbon could be stored in this region.

6) I don't understand the next sentence. "For instance, shear (S) waves moving through the core travel at about fifty percent of the speed expected for most iron alloys." Is this for the inner core? The shear wave velocity in the outer core is 0. Also, when you say most iron alloys that could mean a lot of things. What reference does this come from?

7) Both references [16] and [17] are diamond cell studies.The way it is currently written it seems like only ref [17] is a DAC study.

8) Last sentence: "Hence, the movement of carbon within the Earth's core is not known, but recent research trends seem to point to the presence of these iron carbides." Instead of movement, you are focused on reservoirs. "Although the amount of carbon potentially stored in the Earth's core is not known, recent research indicates that the presence of iron carbides could be consistent with geophysical observations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendymao (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Really?
Last sentence (as of May 25, 2024) in Lower Mantle section:"This occurs so that the carbon atom matches the oxidation state of the basalts erupting in such areas." I'd suggest that if this absurd sentence doesn't alarm you, you shouldn't be editing this article. I'm not sure of the editor(s) background, some of the above talk suggests college or high school students. So, I'm not sure whether anything more is needed than to point out the blunder. Basalt is composed of various oxides of Fe, Si, Al, Mg, Ti, K, and Ca (according to Wikipedia). Al has a formal oxidation state of +3 (usually), is the editor claiming that C matches that oxidation state??? Oh, wait! Maybe s/he meant C matches the -2 oxidation state of oxygen? Or the +4 of Ti, or... I'm no geochemist, and it could be that C attains (dynamic) chemical equilibrium prior to eruption. (As opposed to kinetic balance, say.) If so, it is the activity or fugacity that is "matched" although both terms are a bit too technical (imho) for the general audience. I'd suggest "This oxidation occurs because CO2 has a lower chemical potential energy than it precursors in the magma." But, I am not sure this is technically correct. I'm not sure which energy concept (Gibbs, Helmholtz, ...) is most relied on in geochemistry; it's been way too long since school, but it might be useful to use the Free Energy concept (which requires 'more negative' and 'more positive' instead of "higher" and "lower" and so may add unnecessary complexity here...)98.21.68.176 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)