User talk:ErraticGeologist/sandbox

4/3 Assignment: Great job summarizing and responding to an article (extra credit!). Make sure you also take notes on what you learn from the content too! EKM2018 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 4/7 Assignment: Nice work adding citations to multiple pages (extra credit!). You are doing a great job keeping your sandbox organized and on top of assignments! EKM2018 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 4/10 Assignment - Nice job picking a topic and writing about it in your sandbox. Do you have any ideas on sources? Keep that in mind! EKM2018 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC) 4/21 Assignment - Great job getting 8 sources, but maybe try to get some non-journal sources. Even USGS sources could potentially give you information for background (such as tectonic setting and relative plate motions as the ridge subducts). Nice job citing them and posting them on the Nazca Plate page. NOTE: Be sure to do the associated training about using your sandbox! (+1 extra credit!) EKM2018 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 4/28 Assignment - Nice intro, though you could expand upon your "lead" section and give some expansion to your outline based on the sources you have so far. I do think talking about the origin is important! However, I would love to hear more from Will about crustal thickness - because actually using another source - Tassara et al 2006 "Three-dimensional density model of the Nazca plate and the Andean continental margin" - they estimate up to 35km crustal root. You could at least mention that there is the possibilty for anomalously thick crust and what they suggest as potential reasons (a similar thing I am investigating for trying to understand the origin and characteristics of the nearby Iquique Ridge). Great start though, I'm excited to see more! EKM2018 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 5/1 Presentation Feedback - Do all ridges like this result in flat slab subduction? Be clear and you can use other features on the Nazca Ridge to even explain. Has it been linked to earthquake segmentation along the Peru-Chile Trench? (Another avenue you can find a lot of sources on). I don't think you need to go into too much detail about basalt composition, bend, etc. but I do think you can even just mention these things. Others can build on them (that's how Wiki works right?) and then you can focus on just going into more depth for a few. Just an idea! Nice work! EKM2018 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes: Really really nice work here! Some wording and organizational (flat slab subduction) work to be done - as well as opportunities to expand in some areas (association with seismicity). Overall don't think you need too much more detail! Nicely done. EKM2018 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 5/27 Assignment - Second Draft Notes - Since you took your page live (which is great!) I'm giving you your edits here only. Overall great length. Well cited with links to other pages and nice concise, clear writing. In the morphology section, "Abnormally thick for oceanic crust." (needs a period). The last three sentences of this section seem like they should be put somewhere else, I think the beginning of the Cont. Margin part. In the formation section, you could put in a figure showing the mirroring between Nazca and Tuamotu from GeoMapApp? In the Cont. Margin section, the format is messed up with "...only concurrent with // submarine...", the // is letting you know there is a weird line break. Check it out. Why are there no eq along the ridge? Buoyancy implies coupling right? But could also be a limit to rupture. This is a REALLY fascinating aspect of your feature that I don't want you to spend time researching or trying to explain but I think you could maybe even put a summary/intro to the debate with a single sentence. NICE WORK! Really close to being done I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKM2018 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback
This is a good topic and an important stub to expand. You have made a good start on finding references I was surprised that the crustal thickness is 18 km because just on the basis of simple isostatic calculations I would guess no more than 12 km (I can explain) - since this came from a paper on the ecological implications in the Amazon it thought it good to check the original source and sure enough this is the number given in Woods, M. T., & Okal, E. A. (1994). The structure of the Nazca ridge and Sala y Gomez seamount chain from the dispersion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysical Journal International, 117(1), 205-222. I am still a bit skeptical A key question that your bulleted points do not address are the origin of the Nazca Ridge - your Ray et al. (2012) source discusses this in its introduction but there may be better sources. It is a hotspot feature. I found this older reference PILGER JR, R. H., & Handschumacher, D. W. (1981). The fixed-hotspot hypothesis and origin of the Easter—Sala y Gomez—Nazca trace. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 92(7), 437-446.

In terms of sections, I think your article could include sections on Introductory paragraph, geological setting, Morphology, Formation (and links to current hotspots), History, Interactions with the margin (erosion, uplift - Fitzcarrald Arch), impacts on Amazonia William Wilcock (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
The overall structure and organization is clear and makes sense. The content and presentation seem balanced and unbiased. The article is detailed, thorough, and informative overview. Areas of improvement would be consistency in terminology between the Nazca Ridge, the Nazca Ridge and the crust. Grammar and sentence structure needs to be fixed in a few places.

Section Breakdown

Introduction – This section provides a good summary of what the article discusses. In the second sentence it is unclear if the Nazca Ridge is subducting along the Nazca Plate.

Morphology – The last 2 sentences describing the depth and carbonate deposition would fit better if located after the second sentence.

Formation – “Based on basalt ages” should be at the beginning of the sentence. It is unclear how the Pacific-Farallon/Nazca spreading center relates to the Nazca ridge formation.

Subduction and Migration History – Inconsistent usage of plate and ridge.

Continental Margin Interaction – The data about the Fitzcarrald Arch should be consolidated into section the next section, “Affects to Amazonia”. Last paragraph is confusing.

Affects to Amazonia – It is unclear how the Nazca Ridge is related to the Fitzcarrald Arch and Amazonia. The fish data is interesting but not directly relevant to the Nazca Ridge

DGShanks (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Wow very well written! I like how thorough it is. Really interesting facts, I feel like I learned a lot. Double check if there are some words in your article that can be hyper linked. In the Affects section I would try to find more facts the relate to oceanography/geology. I would try to bring some of the main points together for a final conclusion. I honestly couldn't find much wrong with the article. Great Job!

Beauh2 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Review 5/20
This is very good. Some suggestions William Wilcock (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is abnormally thick for oceanic crust[9], and, at most, the underlying Nazca Plate is only half that thickness[4]". This is a bit confusing since I think it is referring to half of 18 km but the last number you quoted is 35 km.  Figure 6a in [11] show the thickness to either side is 6-8 km so may be you can use [9] and [11] to quote a specific number for crustal thickness to either side of the ridge.  I am astounded that the crust is so thick here.
 * Is the Easter Island Seamount a continuation of the Nazca Ridge (i.e., are they formed by the same mechanism) and if so why does the morphology change.?
 * Figure - I think you could enhance this a bit by adding more labels and maybe feint lines along features although these have the effect of obscuring features. Where does the Nazca ridge start and end.  Where is the Easter Seamount chain.  Can you show the current locations of the Easter Island and Salas y Gomez hotspots.  Also the Pacific-Nazca spreading center.  Is the Tuamotu Plateau visible on your map?  I think not but you could almost have two maps - one zoomed in on the ridge and one even more zoomed out
 * No large earthquakes have been located between 14°S and 15.5°S, where the bathymetric high of the ridge is subducting, implying the the Nazca Ridge itself is a barrier to ruptures[14]. So is a big earthquake expected here at some point or is plate motion aseismic or is it unknown?
 * Effects on Amazonia - Another map showing the geographic features might be useful - Fitzcarrald Arch and the basins

5/30
In great shape in the main space William Wilcock (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)