User talk:Pwise8/sandbox

[please add peer review for EAS 4220/6200 here]

Thomas's Peer Review
The article has a strong opening that tells me what Oolitic Aragonite Sand is and how it is formed in general. It then clearly goes over the formation of the oolitic aragonite sand and then proceeds to give an example of where it commonly occurs. Also, the paragraph that gives an example of how it is used is especially helpful. Also, the article has a neutral tone throughout and does not seem to have any indication of a bias in the texts. Also, the information is given in a manner that does not seem like it was made up on the spot.

The article's structure is a little odd in that the paleoproxy information is given after talking about where you can find the sand in the real world. I think I will try to use what you did in regards to showing an example in the real world of the topic you were covering. However, the rest of the article seems to be well organized. Also, in each paragraph the flow of information is very clear.

I think the main thing is to go over the formation a little more in detail and talk a little more about the paleoproxy. However, the overall topics as a whole are not covered in depth, it seems like there should be more information in each of the sections.

There is a localities section with nothing inside, I think that should be taken out. Also, I think there should be more locations to give a reference for where you can find this type of sand. I think there should also be a citation on the paragraph titled "Paleoproxy". These amendments would improve the article because it would allow for readers to relate to the article better and be able to read up more on the topic.

The sources of this article seem to be reliable. However, one paragraph does not have a source and lessens the validity of the paragraph.

Trodriguez30 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Emmy Hughes Peer Review
Lead Section:

The first sentence of the lead section is on the nose, conveying the necessary information. I would suggest maybe defining the word "bleb" in one quick sentence fragment, something like "tiny blebs, or bubble-like inclusions, of that liquid..." If that's too dense/convoluted, maybe make a second sentence.

Structure:

The structure is overall good. It's a solid inverted pyramid style with the applications saved for the end. Starting with the baseline details and size constraints, moving into where fluid inclusions may form, and some of the examples of fluid inclusions makes a lot of sense, and then moving into applications.

I might start phrase the first couple sentences of your second paragraph a little differently, and also might restructure the whole paragraph. Maybe something like "hydrothermal ore minerals, which form from high temperature aqueous solutions, trap fluids in inclusions that record a record of composition, temperature, and pressure of the mineralizing environments". I actually also might move those sentences to after the "An inclusion often contains two or more phases" sentence. Something like this:

"An inclusion often contains two or more phases, and this can aid in constraining conditions at the time of mineralization. If a vapor bubble is present in the inclusion along with a liquid phase, simple heating of the inclusion to the point of resorption of the vapor bubble gives a likely temperature of the original fluid. If minute crystals are present in the inclusion, such as halite, sylvite, hematite, or sulfides are present, they provide direct clues as to the composition of the original fluid. For example, hydrothermal ore minerals, which form from high temperature aqueous solutions, trap fluids in inclusions that record a record of composition, temperature, and pressure of the mineralizing environments".

No worries if you want to keep it as before, but I'd still think about restructuring to put the general concept first before getting into hydrothermal ore minerals.

I might even also give a heading to your third, fourth and fifth paragraphs that's called something like: "Fluid Inclusions Scientific Uses" or something much zestier than that.

Coverage Balance:

I think it's well balanced coverage. The only thing I might beef up a bit is more information about how the fluid inclusions form. Otherwise I think it does a good job of capturing the diversity of types and applications of fluid inclusions.

Neutrality of Coverage:

The coverage is quite neutral. I don't see any obvious bias in this writing. No clear claims from particular biased perspectives.

References:

I think it's worth referencing some of the statements in your second paragraph. Since you say "for example," meaning you're using specific examples, I think it might be good to source directly. The deep cores from Greenland and the Antarctic ice caps are most in need of citations, I think, but the other statements could use them as well.

The same thing applies to your third paragraph. Essentially every sentence in that paragraph could probably use a citation.

In the third paragraph, these two sentences: "Fluid inclusions trapped within granulite facies rocks have provided important clues on the petrogenesis of dry granulite facies rocks through the influx of CO2-rich fluids from sub-lithospheric sources. CO2-rich fluid inclusions were also recorded from a number of ultrahigh-temperature granulite facies terranes suggesting the involvement of CO2 in extreme crustal metamorphism." both need citations.

This sentence also needs a citation: "Air bubbles trapped within the deep ice caps can also be analyzed for clues to ancient climate conditions." The rest are good, I think.

Your citations are all good, except the "Dino Breath" one which looks to be not a primary source, and I'm unsure as to why it's included considering it looks like you don't directly link to it, just include it as a resource? I don't know if it's necessary. Could be worthwhile looking for another source for amber fluid inclusions.

--Ebhughes20 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Emmy Hughes