User talk:Ewalde1/Crustal Recycling Draft

Cindy: Few Suggestions
-I don’t think the first paragraph of section “Relationship to Plate Tectonics” is needed because it does not aid in explaining the main focus of your page. Though it is related and provides a brief history of the overall topic, it is not necessary. I think adding a plate tectonics link to the introductory section would be just as effective (in that it would provide the history). -Hyperlink seismic tomography. I also think another term to describe “felsic scum” would be best. -I would suggest adding a few more sentences to the “Evidence from Seismic Tomography” section that is a bit more detailed in explaining how seismic tomography supports your main topic. For example, briefly discuss an observation made using seismic tomography that lead to the leaps in our understanding of mantle structure. -Perhaps a section on mechanisms for crustal recycling? -Great work on your image! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinColon (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rough draft critique by Marielle
Wow talk about mastering wikipedia. Everything looks correctly referenced... above and beyond what I understand. Your diagram looks like it could have come straight from a textbook and is very impressive and effective. My only suggestion is to make the MOR more pronounced since the diagram isn't to scale anyway.

Relationship to plate tectonics

 * I would include the first names of Hess and Wilson since it is the first time they are being mentioned in the article. If you wanted to discuss them later it would be okay to just use their last names.
 * Could you maybe create a subsection further explaining these "two camps" of geologists? It seems like a natural direction your wiki article could go.
 * The tone of the second paragraph in this section seems a little too informal for an encyclopedia article.
 * What is "felsic scum"? The average reader would probably have trouble with this.
 * AWESOME links

Evidence from seismic tomograpy
This section could stand to be expanded. Also, "ultimate destiny" seems a little informal.

Overall... this is the most correctly written wiki page which doesn't surprise me. It is a great first draft with very few corrections.

Taylor Berlin Critique
You talk about the two camps of geologists, the ones who believe in whole-mantle convection and the the others who beleive layered mantle convection. My suggestion would be to go a little more indepth and explain the differences in each theory or add a direct link so the reader can know what the differences are between the two. Other than that the article was very well written and nice figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tberli3 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your link to science magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5300/613.full) should be included as a references rather than a link of piece of text.  Then you can tell us the article name author etc.
 * Where you state "mantle convection is simple" this needs a much bigger explanation.
 * After reading this I feel that I have read a good introduction, but not actually come to much of a body of the topic. Surely there has been far more said of the topic of crustal recycling.
 * Good use of wikilinks and DOIs extra authors etc in references. Though put the punctuation before the reference.
 * The slab graveyard appears in the diagram and one reference, but not in the text. I expect that this is an example of non-recycling, but could do with more explanation.

Review by Stephen Reed

 * I couldn't find this page live on wikipedia.
 * Intro
 * I felt like I could understand this if I didn't know anything about it which is good.
 * Fate
 * I feel like this is a continuation of the intro, maybe combine these or put more info into this.
 * Historical
 * I like the format of this section, maybe include a little more reasoning behind the different theories.
 * Evidence
 * I think a picture here would help make it easier to understand what your trying to talk about.
 * Isotopes
 * I think you could make one topic showing evidence and have these last two as subtopics of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed16 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)