User talk:Ailobao/sandbox

Peer Reviews
Review 1 Hello! Your article draft looks good so far. Here are some things I liked:
 * Your tone is suitable for an Encyclopedia article. I noticed no instances of outright bias.
 * You have structured the draft well! Perhaps, placing the "and Juan de Fuca Ridge" section before the "Geochemical and Physical Processes" could aid the flow?

I made quite a few grammar/spelling/syntax changes to your draft. Here are some additional suggestions for you: (For example, I could not fully understand "Derives from plumes of molten mantle that upwell to the crust of Earth, whether that be oceanic crust or continental." It is the hotspot that derives from these plumes, correct? Also, the sentence "This does not mean that all volcanoes are hotspots." distracts where it currently stands. It may be unnecessary.) (I know it could be hard to do this, because you may not find the necessary information in varying sources. But, your work will look more researched if you succeed.)
 * IMPORTANT! Please reread your draft, and ensure your intended meaning is getting across at all times. Some things are difficult to comprehend, due to grammar/syntax.
 * Add Wikipedia links to key terms, such as "Pacific Ocean", "Juan de Fuca Ridge", "Alaskan Trench", etc.
 * Restructure the sentences in the first paragraph under "Geochemical and Physical Processes". It sounds choppy, as it is.
 * Name the JDF Ridge in "A recent study found that magmas from the spreading ridge and the hotpot have their differences." to avoid confusion.
 * Your sources look appropriate. However, you might want to use information/have citations from a few different sources in each paragraph.
 * Add an image of the Cobb Hotspot and the Axial Seamount Chain.

''I apologize if I have been too critical. Good luck!'' Surbhi ghadia (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Review 2 Hey Ashley, I noted a few things that you could consider:

Overall, I think your article has the right information, it just needs some reformatting and restructuring for readability and accessibility. Daothao (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Steven
 * The coordinates are already present outside of the intro above the image, and I think the current implementation might be better
 * Your section titles might not be informative enough, try considering short, conclusive ones like "Mantle Pluming" or "History" and include relative references to both the Juan de Fuca and Axial Seamount within the sections and without restating the page title.
 * Don't forget to use a ton of internal links, as each page should be dependant on each other to describe specific topics. An example is how you redefine mantle plumes instead of mentioning it through an internal link and noting how the Cobb Hotspot is related.
 * Your sources seem verifiable and varied and is nice that you include overlaps. I suggest you move your reflist near your article draft so it easier to read however.
 * There are a few errors/inconsistencies such as when you spell out twenty to forty km and not include a mile conversion, "Derives from plumes of molten mantle that upwell to the crust of Earth, whether that be oceanic crust or continental." reads like a fragmented sentence, "For these two masses to exist, the temperature of the magma at the Cobb Hotspot must be of a particular high temperature." uses temperature redundantly and without a reference number for being "high".
 * Add some pictures from geomappapp or some from wiki commons!