User:Rmscott2019/sandbox

Ocean 410 : Week 3 Topic Selection

-> For this project I have chosen to write about the Moab Fault. The current Wiki briefly describes the location and tectonic features associated; I plan to add more detailed information about the location of the fault, the specifics of the geological features associated with the fault, how those features came to be, and why the fault is geologically interesting. I will also add information regarding the processes that formed the fault and surrounding features.

Ocean 410 : Week 2 Reading Review

Plate Tectonics and Divergent Plate Boundary Article Review:

-> Plate Tectonics is the scientific theory describing the relative motion of the Earth's surface, composed of seven (or eight) major lithospheric plates and many more additional minor lithospheric plates. The three distinct types of plate boundaries formed by tectonic plates alludes to the motion and characteristics of the plates themselves. While I am fairly familiar with the theory of plate tectonics as well as divergent plate boundaries (the boundary type I chose to investigate), in regards to the different components involved in these processes and the hypotheses as to how and why these processes happen, I found it interesting to learn about how much uncertainty there is with the subsurface drivers of plate tectonics, the influence rotation can has, and implications on other celestial bodies.

-> Uncertainty for drivers of plate motion and their connectedness:

-'Drifters' vs 'fixists' (plates move, fixists were incorrect)

-Slab pull vs ridge push vs combination of the two (combination is most likely)

-Small mantle upwelling vs entire mantle convection cells (whole convection cells are least likely

->The affect of rotation on Plate Tectonics:

-Related forces: Coriolis (apparent), Centrifugal

--Theory:

-considered to be negligible in regards to major motions

-slight affect: Earth spins eastward with respect to the moon, the moon's gravity slightly draws Earth's surface westward (the drift could also be lined to growth of the pacific plate)

-Theory of Plate Tectonics is multifaceted and developed over years to have all its current comments (i.e. 1965 transform fault theory component added)

->Other Celestial Bodies

-Larger bodies have increased likelihood of having plate tectonics

-Exoplanets are more likely to have plate tectonics if water is present (water lis likely linked to the advent of plate tectonics on earth)

-> Reading Questions to Consider:
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * the page on Plate Tectonics was well researched and had appropriate citations/references, while the page on divergence lacked (even said citation needed in parentheses)
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Both the articles defined subtopics well and explained the relation to plate tectonics/divergence (I did not get distracted)
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The plate tectonics page presented information in an unbiased when describing the history and build up to the theory and debated theory component. I appreciated the author noting what was most accepted in the scientific theory.
 * The divergent boundary article presented information in a matter-of-fact manner and may be biased for not including the caveat of other theory.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources?
 * The majority of sources for both pages were namely peer reviewed journal articles, which I consider to be neutral and trustworthy
 * Are there sub-topics that are overrepresented, underrepresented or missing?
 * I found the pages to be balanced and complete in content
 * Do the illustrations and images add to the article and are there illustrations/images that could be usefully added?
 * The images are useful in helping a non-academic learn about these topics, but because of the generalizations in the schematics present, they would not be particularly helpful to a trained scientists due to the inaccuracies.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * The plate tectonic article appears not to have plagiarism because of the citations and references (links work)
 * The divergent boundary page is at risk of plagiarism due to the lack of citations and accredited sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Both pages seem to be current with what is accepted in the scientific community
 * Check the "talk" page - what conversation is the Wikipedia community having behind the scenes about how to represent these topics?
 * the talk page for plate tectonics listed errors and content gaps that I (mostly) found to be resolved on the page (e.g. including information on the affects of rotation)
 * the talk page for divergent boundaries called the article short (which I agree with) but that it was also boring (which I disagree with)
 * What is the article rated?
 * the articles are rated on quality and importance: plate tectonics: quality: C, level 3 vital; divergent boundary: qualityL start-class, importance: mid-importance
 * How does the way these subjects are discussed on Wikipedia differ from how they have been discussed in your prior Earth Science classes?
 * the topics are discussed in a way that someone with now background could read the articles and have a general grasp of these concepts. In classes, we have always built on previous information and go into further detail, regarding the intricacies involved. ~