User talk:Connerlaursen/sandbox

The article appears to be professional and follow the rules we've learned on a good article. There are working links on every section that send us to other Wikipedia pages that help further explain the ideas. Sources seem neutral, unbiased and follow the topics and ideas displayed in the article. Illustrations and images do in fact help convey the messages and topics explained. The images differ slightly than what we've learned but it is an overall decent article, better than probably anything I could create at the moment and does what it intends to do relatively well. The talk page explains that the article was once featured and has been professionally reviewed which adds to its authenticity.
 * Conner - be sure to be specific about what these notes are for (which assignment/which article/etc) - I encourage you to use explicit sections to divide up your work! Also, assuming this was for Assignment 4/3 (Week 1), the assignment asked for you to take notes on what you learn from the content as well! (-1 point) Try to also use the user page of your sandbox rather than your talk page! EKM2018 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I chose the article Pitcairn hotspot as my stub to add to for the wikipedia project. The article is very short and concise, but is lacking a lot of information on an otherwise decently sized seamount chain with islands. There are many questions I hope to answer and facts to display as the only information added right now is a single figure and a brief description to where the place is. There are citations needed and research to be conducted to add everything needed to make this a more quality page with more information that can be of use to anyone searching what the Pitcairn hotspot is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connerlaursen (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

4/21 Assignment - Looks like you got all your sources and ended up posting their citation. Your "fact" is more of a general summary of what the source will provide you, so it would be nice if you included an actual fact from the article that demonstrates that that source indeed will provide you the correct information. You forgot to post the bibliography to the talk page of the article - you may get some feedback from others by doing this! Also, your citations seem a little wonky - are you using the citation tool? Finally, try to find some non-journal sources if you can to add variety! (-1 point) EKM2018 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 4/28 Assignment - Nice outline but it would be great if I could see some of this expanded by what you've found in your sources. Don't try to take on too much but starting out with the "lead" section will give you some indication on if your sources are sufficient or not. They do seem in line with your outline which is good, and I also really liked that you outlined what figures would work well! EKM2018 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 5/5 Assignment - First Draft Comments - I think Will provided you with some very extensive comments Conner. I have a little more I could add to his to specify. You clearly have the info for your lead already in here but you just need to consolidate the information - location and significance is sufficient so that you don't restate everything in your subsequent sections. Your lavas section is essentially the petrology/rock type for the current islands. Be sure that when you state the lava types, maybe make it less technical and explain - i.e. what is the difference between picritic and alkali basalt, what are tracyandesite and trachyte? Then when you discuss petrology for the hotspot chain you can say how this has changed through time and have a basis for stating these types without having to describe what they are again. DEFINITELY make sure you are citing your sources! Everything you write should be referenced, either at the end of the line or the beginning/end of the paragraph! I would recommend picking one source to start with, taking notes on what you can use from it that would fit within the outline Will made, and then do the same for each of your sources. That way you can feel systematic and not overwhelmed and get something down for people to peer review. Please let me know if you want to meet to discuss further! EKM2018 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 5/26 Assignment - Second Draft Comments - I put in a A LOT of comments. I reorganized the header and some other things. You can get rid of the bolded and crossed out things when you accept/make changes. I think you are missing some key information and could expand some sections a bit more. I also think you need another figure zoomed in with labels for people to reference when you are talking about all the different islands. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments! Once you take care of these and whatever Will adds you can make your final draft on the main page. EKM2018 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4/10 Assignment - Nice job picking a topic and writing about it in your sandbox. Do you have any ideas on sources? Also, you should try to separate your notes in your sandbox with headings and be more clear with the organization! EKM2018 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Incredibly stressed for time this week and weekend but here's a list of sources that I can use. I can edit in the rest of the facts and more sources after tomorrow, 4/22/18

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377027302004274

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2003/publication-784.pdf

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01226567

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/the-pitcairn-hotspot-in-the-south-pacific-distribution-and-composition-MDNhfaOdxl

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=78dd2ff7-615e-4dd3-b974-3d44f5968f6e%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2009-040684&db=geh

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=78dd2ff7-615e-4dd3-b974-3d44f5968f6e%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2005-029032&db=geh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connerlaursen (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback
Please put your work in the Sandbox - the talk page is for people do discuss your Sandbox with you. As soon as you get your key facts from these sources and also cite the sources, I will add some comments. William Wilcock (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Comments 5/8/18
This draft is a little off track because it not focusing sufficiently on the geology and you are not incorporating the sources you have found. the section Islands is not relevant; the section Seamounts mostly repeats the lead; the Tectonic Behaviour section is a little confusing because while there is a chain of seamounts extending to the East Pacific Rise the pitcairn hotspot is well to the west and the chain of seamounts/islands it produced is even further to the west.

You need to cite your references so that each statement is linked to the place you got the information from. This is easy to do using visual editing and the cite tool.

Also at present references 1, 2, and 4 in your list of sources are all the same so are a little short of sources

If you look at the citation Delavault, H., Chauvel, C., Thomassot, E., Devey, C. W., & Dazas, B. (2016). Sulfur and lead isotopic evidence of relic Archean sediments in the Pitcairn mantle plume. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(46), 12952-12956. you will find that Figure 1 in that paper is a really nice map of the hotspot chain. The Pitcairn Seamounts on that map (labelled Pitcairn S.) include the seamounts Bounty and Adams and they mark the current location of the hotspot. However the hotspot includes various other island and seamounts that extend out to the west. You can recreate this map to include with this article and use this source to write a description of the Pitcairn-Gambier hotspot chain.

I think your article should be organized as follows

Lead - state that Pitcairn hotspot is currently located at at Adams and Bounty Seamounts, ~60 km (check) ESE of Pitcairn island and has formed the Pitcairn-Gambier hotspot chain over the past 11 My

Current Hotspot Location (two sections)

1. Morphology - ref 1 describes the seamounts

2. Petrology - ref 1 and 3 describe the petroloyg

Pitcairn-Gambier hotspot chain (two sections below)

1. Morphology - describe the chain using the Delavault et al reference I gave you above

2. Petrology - this may be hard to find but this would be a start "Dupuy, C., Vidal, P., Maury, R., & Guille, G. (1993). Basalts from Mururoa, Fangataufa and Gambier islands (French Polynesia): Geochemical dependence on the age of the lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 117(1-2), 89-100."

Formation - If you can find the source of "Opponents of the hotspots theory instead attribute Pitcairn hotspot to the western end of the Easter Fracture Zone" then you can discuss alternative models for its formation. A good place to start might be http://www.mantleplumes.org/Easter.html (this is a citeable web site)

William Wilcock (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Response to instructor peer review 5/12/18

After reading review on what I have so far it is clear to me some revision needs to be done. From what I understand, some revision of the section names and extent of information in the sections needs to done. Information that is not common knowledge needs to be elaborated on, more references need to be cited in text and everything needs to come together more smoothly and less confusing like. I need a lead section, as stated in both reviews and I personally think I would benefit from a better figure than what is on the page already. I'll do my best to follow this to get my draft ready for peer reviews next week, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connerlaursen (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Bing's Peer Review
Both Emma and Will have given extensive comments. I agreed with Will's suggestion. I understand that sometimes information can go in all directions but thinking about how to put everything together would be helpful for readers. In another word, instead of having many sections with a short statement for each, I would work on putting them together. For example, the "overviews", "islands" and "seamount" can all go into one section. I also agreed with Emma that you should clarify what exactly is each type of lava. Is there a way to distinguish them? Do they always erupt together? Is there a certain condition that causes certain type to dominate another?

Overall, I think it will be a great page if you can manage to put in all the information you have. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bing Y. Lee (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Neo Culture Technology's peer review
Hi Connor, You have a nice structure of the page overall! Here are my suggestions: -	Adding geologic time on when the islands formed? -	How the islands were formed? -	How big (width/height) are the seamounts? -	I don’t quite understand how the opponents of the hot spot theory argue the other theory. Could you add some more explanations? -	More details of the different types of lavas could be added too. I understand how the end of the quarter could get busy, but you can do it! Best of luck on editing :) Neo Culture Technology (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Review 6/7/18
This still needs a lot of work to clarify the content you have and Emma's comments are a great start. I have added mine on top of hers.

The figure needs to be remade (zoomed in) and annotated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Wilcock (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)