User talk:Ckushel/sandbox

=Peer Review= Organization in general was quite good, but maybe consider adding a separate section on Glaciovolcanism and focus the introduction on a brief overview of the following sections. The subheadings were accurate and described the content well. Because the Marie Byrd land was not mentioned before, that section was a little unexpected, though it was relevant to the topic and is connected to other sections. Maybe adding a line into the intro about the Marie Byrd land's significance of uniqueness in regards to volcanism would make the transition a little smoother, but that fits into the brief overview suggestion anyway.

The information was very good, and covered the topic broadly with enough depth to make the section useful to anyone who might want information about volcanoes in Antarctica. The article covered well-established findings/material on the topic comprehensively. The pictures were relevant to sections in the article, but maybe a graphic showing locations of volcanoes in the Marie Byrd land would be more relevant to the topic than one of just the Marie Byrd land. "The Marie Byrd land spans 900 km along the pacific coast of Antarctica" does give the reader a good idea of the size of the Marie Byrd land, but maybe telling something like how long the volcanic range is in the Marie Byrd land is would be a little more relevant to the topic.

The citations and references were all of very high quality and none were depended on too heavily or too little. The format of the references was solid, but #19's doi seemed to lead nowhere, though the actual link for #19 worked perfectly.

Grammar is pretty solid apart from a few small nitpicks with punctuation. I think "however" might need a semicolon before and an optional comma after it in "There have been no eruptions recorded from any of the volcanoes in this area, however scientists believe that some of the volcanoes may be potentially active." I think the comma should be removed from before the "and" in "However, West Antarctic Volcanoes form underneath ice sheets, and are thus categorized as subglacial volcanoes."

Style was perfectly suited to the nature of the article and formal throughout. I think a word besides "comprehensive" might be a little more suited here "Researchers find it difficult to properly identify volcanic activity due to the comprehensive ice covering." Maybe removing "in fact" or adding "could" in front of "indicate" here " ...deformations in the ice surface indicate that the West Antarctic Rift System is, in fact, active and contains erupting volcanoes" would make the sentence a bit more neutral. Aside from these two very minor things, the style seemed perfect.

Overall, the content was very good, as were the sources, grammar, and style. I think simply changing the introduction some to make the article a little more structured would make the article nearly perfect.

Just my opinion, in regards to adding a "Hazards" section, if the article is going in a stub in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Antarctica#Volcanoes I don't think it's all that relevant; however, if the article is going in its own wiki page it would be perfectly reasonable to include it.

RESPONSE:

I will definitely include more about the Marine Byrd layer in the intro in order to make it a more relevant section. Thanks for the heads up! I also will include things on glaciovolcanism, unless I decide to add to the already existing page. I have considered linking it, but I think you're right in that I should simply include a brief overview to make the article more holistic. Thank you so much for your help!

What I still need help on:

Do you think there is enough clear information in this article? Because so much about antarctic volcanoes is unknown or uncertain, I feel like I am not providing a whole lot of new information. Do you think it is worthwhile to delete the part on hazards? I mostly included it because it is one portion of antarctic volcanism that is certain -- a piece of information that I can include without specifying that it is only hypothesized. Do you think there are any other important aspects that I can touch on? I feel like my writing and use of citations and quotes is decently solid, but my actual quantity of information is lacking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckushel (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think given the state of literature on glaciovolcanism, the amount of information provided is perfectly adequate. The addition under glaciovolcanism about how the study of glaciovolcanism can mitigate the impact of volcanoes makes a section on its impact on humans relevant to the article, so the hazards section fits nicely in the article. It seems that the article is generally comprehensive as it is and doesn't leave any unanswered questions that a reader without in-depth knowledge about the subject might have. The organization is also great, with each subtitle containing appropriate content. I liked the addition of the eruption in Iceland, as it shows that the subject is relevant to human activity. Overall, I think the article is very well done and just about ready to publish!Rojasmar (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)