User:Anongeologist/sandbox

Article evaluation!

"Hawaii hotspot"

The parts about ancient Hawaiian history seem a little distracting considering most of the article is about hotspot theory. This section just does not fit because it is not scientific enough and does not match the tone of the rest of the article. I think it is good the authors present multiple models and talk about how there is scientific uncertainty regarding hotspots. Most of the references cited are from a variety of authors and include pretty recent science from peer-reviewed journals with authors that express competing views (Foulger). However, I would like to see something from the last 10 years or so. The lack of new evidence suggests that there may be some gaps in the article because the newest science has been neglected. Because of this, I think the 'Modern Studies' section is severely lacking while the rest of the supporting background information is sound because they cite multiple theories from multiple authors that have varying viewpoints to give the article a neutral tone. I think many wiki-people are focusing on the spin-offs and more specific topics mentioned in this article. For instance, I think there is more information on Wikipedia about plumes and hotspot volcanism than the Hawaii hotspot specifically.

In the characteristics section, the authors break down very basic geophysical parameters that the average reader can understand, which is also a good aspect of the article.I especially enjoyed the section about the evolution of the volcanoes evolving into something that protrudes above the water. This article is a part of the geology wikiproject, and there was a lot of action in the talk page. It seems as though the article was receiving many revisions before it finally got approved. Once it was approved, most people abandoned it, which is sad. Many of the people seemed pretty nit-picky and suggested changes in the number of links, grammar, and content that was deemed off-topic. After all of the changes, it was rated as a "good article." In my opinion, it is a good, informative article, but it is not up-to-date with the latest scientific, peer-reviewed literature.

Possible articles

"Cryovolcano"

This article is severely lacking. It was found on the geology wikiproject, and was cited as an article in need of improvement. I must admit that the article has a decent introduction. The tone is also neutral, but it lacks an abundance of recent research about cryovolcanism and cryovolcanoes. Within the observations section, I would like to see sub-sections about observations seen on Pluto, Ceres, and Titan, or where ever else cryovolcanism is observed. I think observations categorized based on location could be a very useful addition. Also, a section about possible mechanisms for cryovolcanism should be included and written about extensively. Information about the possible chemical properties of cryovolcanism as it is observed on various planets should also be included.

"Geology of Iceland"

I actually think this could be a much better article than it is at the present moment. Interestingly, the authors explain the geological significance of Iceland and various eruptions that have occurred in Iceland which had a global impact; however, they do not explain anything about how observations in Iceland contribute anything to our understanding about the mantle or mantle plumes, for instance. Besides present geology, people could also talk about the interplay between geology and tourism seen in Iceland or geology's impact on culture in Iceland. The glacial subsection is also not as extensive as it could be. Observations and cutting-edge research about geology in Iceland remains unmentioned. For an article about Iceland, very little is mentioned about the Mid-Atlantic Ridge as well. More could be written about igneous rocks and geothermal features like geysers! I believe this article warrants massive expansion.

"Mineral physics"

As stated in the talk page, the article lacks additional equations of state. Also, the article lacks information about melting in the core and Mantle, transport properties, and the general implications as they apply to the earth's interior. There is not much information about phase changes of major minerals. Clearly, this is also a huge content gap. I think the article could link to other articles about the mantle and its composition, but it does not. This could be a very helpful addition to readers. The articles mentions that mineral physics is an important field, but never mentions the exact implications for other concepts like plate tectonics, convection and the geodynamo. I enjoy that someone started a section about seismic waves and this could be greatly expanded on. With that being said, I would enjoy more figures and animations. There is only one figure on this page. Something like a phase diagram could be interesting and allow for a broad introduction about minerals within the deep earth for an everyday, average reader.

Unfounded claim in cryovolcano article

An unreferenced sentence on the cryovolcano wikipedia page reads as follows: "One potential energy source on some solar system bodies for melting ices and producing cryovolcanoes is tidal friction."

The citation below was added as reference [4] in the article.

4. Greenberg, Richard (2002). "Tidal-tectonic processes and their implications for the character of Europa's icy crust". Reviews of     Geophysics. 40 (2). doi:10.1029/2000rg000096. ISSN 8755-1209.

Peer Review of Articles 10/21/2018

Agmarusiak:

The author is taking on a very empty Wikipedia page (Lunar seismology), and I started with reading the 'future plans section' because it seemed to be the most substantial part of the original Wikipedia article and the author's proposed edits within their sandbox. I really like how the author is tackling a section that is in direct need of improvement. In the future plans section of the original article, there is a plea by Wikipedia that the states article needs to be updated, so choosing pertinent content desired by the community is very kind of the author. The continuation of this section fits in perfectly with what already exists on the Wikipedia article. Also, finding more specific and attributable information about the future plans for lunar seismology is probably difficult, so any amount of content with bits of useful information can help.

With all that being said, I wish I had a better feeling of what actually needs to be done and what the goal of the research is just by viewing the Wikipedia page. How does all of this information advance scientific understanding on earth? Someone glancing at the Wikipedia page might just click away, for the lack of content does not really help me understand anything that is going on with this topic (this is also the case with my page and I'm not blaming you or anything). For the moonquakes section, creating some kind of simple table about the categories of moonquakes could help readers understand the significance of doing seismological work like this. I think this is what was suggested in class. In my head, I am thinking of something like this: type of moonquake, the generalized observation from seismometers etc., and then how that observation actually informs what we know about the moon. I think this would be very useful because it would help organize the structure of lunar interior section. By having this table, you can directly talk about the interior from the physical phenomenon and scientific observations as written in the table. It could act as an organizing tool to write the rest of the interior section. This table would also cut down on how much you have to write. I think it would help you say more with less, which is great because concise is probably always better on a Wikipedia article. Besides these suggestions, the authors writing style and tone seems spot on. This is a weird observation, but should we be saving citations for the end of sentences or should we hang them write after the info we want to cite?

- Anongeologist

Donuts4u:

First of all, I think it is cool that you are making a new Wikipedia page! I also think it is nice that it is so relevant to the class. Right away, I noticed that you are not using the Wikipedia citation tool. I think this would help you and make the article more transferable. I think everything you write is factually correct, but I am wanting even a little more about why we care about lid tectonics and the implications for earth. I am thinking about the heat pipe mode paper and the squishy lid regime papers we read in class. Both of these papers suggest certain surface and mantle conditions for early earth's history, and for me at least, this is a large part of why lid tectonics and different tectonic modes are interesting. Some discussion along these lines could greatly enhance the article because it provides an intuitive frame of reference for the reader by mentioning earth's history, and it provides a good amount of significance for why the reader should care about lid tectonics. According to some authors we've read, when did we make the jump to plate tectonics, if we were in fact experiencing some kind of stagnant/mobile lid? How do the initial conditions matter for how we model these processes? Some discussion about the evolution about stagnant lid in addition to how it forms could also be useful. This would work best in the lead in and the "Formation" section where you have already started to mention some of this information. I am not saying to write in-depth about the other modes we read about because that could be perceived as off topic, but talking about the possible significance on earth and drawing some more attention to the uniqueness of plate tectonics could help you. Also, from the title, it is not obvious that the whole article will be discussing stagnant lid vs some of those other regimes like heat pipe. I am no expert, but I would just title the article Stagnant Lid Tectonics. I am thinking of someone that simply googles stagnant lid. The word 'stagnant' seems like a key word to me in addition to the word 'lid'. These are just suggestions, and I could be wrong or misleading you in some way.

I understand it is more challenging to basically make a new page since there is no existing framework to build on. So far, I like all the sections you have, and all the information you have is useful and informative! Perhaps mentioning heat pipe and squishy lid briefly in another section could be pertinent. Within driving forces, maybe you could subdivide it into sections like heat, stresses, viscosity etc. Is there maybe an opportunity to discuss chemistry in your article?

The Opening of the North Atlantic and The Origin of Iceland
Since Iceland is located atop the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, some scientists believe the hotspot beneath Iceland could have contributed to the rifting of Pangaea and the subsequent formation of the Northern Atlantic Ocean because igneous rocks found on both sides of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge originating from the hotspot beneath Iceland originated 57-53 mya (around the time North America and Eurasia separate and sea floor spreading initiates in the Northeast Atlantic). Geologists can ascertain some information about plate motion relative to the Iceland hotspot by examining igneous rocks throughout the Northern Atlantic region because certain rocks attributable to hot spot volcanism can be interpreted as volcanic traces left by the Iceland hotspot. By assuming hotspots' locations do not change with time, Geologists use what is called the "hotspot frame of reference" to gather plate motion estimates, so they can create maps depicting plates moving on the surface of the earth relative to a stationary hotspot.

Most work discussing plate motion agrees the Iceland hotspot was probably located beneath Greenland for a period of time. As the North Atlantic Ocean continued to spread apart during this time period, Greenland was located to the southeast of the Iceland hotspot and likely moved over it from around ~70-40 mya. Some research using new plate motion data gathered from hotspot reference frames from around the world suggests that the Iceland hotspot's path differs from older investigations. Many older rocks (dated 75-70 mya) located throughout the area to the west are not only located near hypothesized Iceland hotspot paths, but also attributable to hotspot volcanism, which implies a plausible case for the Iceland hotspot being much older than the earliest rifting of what is now the northernmost Northeast Atlantic. If such a hypothesis is true, then much of the rifting in the North Atlantic was likely caused by thinning and bulging of the crust as opposed to more direct influence by the mantle plume that sustains the Iceland hotspot.

In other scientific work regarding the path of the Iceland hotspot, no such westward track toward Canada (where the aforementioned older igenous rocks exist) can be detected, which implies that the older igenous rocks found in the Northern Atlantic may not have originated from the hotspot. Although the exact path of the Iceland hotspot is debated, a preponderance of geophysical evidence such as the geothermal heat flux over Greenland shows that the hotspot likely moved below Greenland from ~80-50 mya.

Around ~60-50 mya when Iceland was located near the eastern coast of Greenland and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, volcanism, which could have been generated by the Iceland hotspot, connected the Eurasian and North American continents and formed a land bridge between the continents while they spread apart; this feature is known as the Greenland Scotland Transverse Ridge, and it know lies below sea level. Approximately 36 mya, the Iceland hotspot was fully in contact with the oceanic crust and possibly fed segments of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge which continued to form the oldest rocks located directly to the east and west of modern-day Iceland. The oldest subaerial rocks in modern-day Iceland are from 16.5 mya.

Although most scientists believe Iceland is capable of being an island because it is both in contact with a mantle plume and being actively split apart by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, some other convincing seismological and geophysical evidence calls the previously discussed mantle plume/hotspot assumption into question. Some geologists believe there is not enough definitive evidence to suggest a mantle plume exists beneath Iceland because sea floor heat flow through the lithosphere surrounding Iceland does not deviate from normal oceanic lithosphere heat flow that is uninfluenced by a plume. This cold crust hypothesis directly opposes the idea that Iceland is located beneath a hot mantle plume. Additional evidence indicates that seismic waves created under Iceland behave differently than expected based on other seismic surveys near hypothesized mantle plumes .Given how complex the geology of the Northeast Atlantic is, more research must be done to fully understand the geologic nature of Iceland. Given the fact it is one of the only places sea floor spreading can be observed on land and the fact that there is evidence for a mantle plume, the early geological history of Iceland will likely remain a hot area of research.