User talk:Sarcastaball/sandbox

4/3 Assignment - Great job doing training on time and taking notes in your sandbox! Needed to take notes on one of the other pages as well. (-1 point) EKM2018 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 4/7 Assignment - Uh oh! Looks like you need to get this one done! Trainings and citations! Try to do ASAP! EKM2018 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Looks good! EKM2018 (talk) 04:36, 13 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) 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) 4/21 Assignment - Great job adding to the current page and posting your sources and summaries so far. I agree that I found more when searching "Easter Microplate" -- especially trying to find non-journal articles and more recent information. It looks like a couple pages came up on different surveys (http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HIGP/Faculty/hey/easter.html & https://www3.mbari.org/expeditions/EasterMicroplate/index.htm) which could help you find more! NOTE: Don't forget to do you training about using your sandbox! EKM2018 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 4/28 Assignment - Keep expanding that "lead" section as well as the outline with the current sources you have. You can also start to add ideas for figures to the outline! EKM2018 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 5/2 Presentation Feedback - Can you compare the size of the plate to a known country or state for the general audience understanding? Further explain the specifics and timeline of the these rapid changes, complex convergence, and transform faulting. I really think you should start with History and Tectonics, they will give a nice general background to help flow into more detail in the subsequent Dynamics and Fault Plane Solution sections if that's what you want to do. If you only have a handful of articles it seems like you should definitely be bale to fully read them... I wouldn't describe "what's better" when you have two conflicting sources, rather include both sides and put them chronologically and under a "On-Going Debates" section or something. EKM2018 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes - Will's comments are a good basis for continuing your work. This needs to get into a true wikipedia article format with headers and full prose. I would retitle the "Fault Plane Solutions" section - that's not really what you are talking about - you can put this information possibly in tectonics. I think structure and evolution would essentially be what you already have in tectonics and history? What are you thinking would go here that wouldn't fit in the other sections? Let me know if you want to meet to discuss this further but I think I would recommend picking one source to start with (especially from the additional sources that Will suggested), taking notes on what you can use from it that would fit within the streamlined outline, and then do the same for each of your sources. That way you can feel systematic and not overwhelmed and get something down in the Wikipedia article format for people to peer review. Please let me know if you want to meet to discuss further! EKM2018 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 5/26 Assignment - Second Draft Notes - Did a lot of editing to improve your concise-ness and wordiness, and make you take a look at how you citing this so it is presentable as well as well cited. I think this is a great length and you have a lot of detail! I think you just need to clean it up a bit and you're really close! Nice job Jeff. You can unbold and remove the strike through on the things I have changed if you accept the changes. You can also look at this history to see how I have moved some things around. Let me know if you have any questions about my edits! EKM2018 (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback
This is a good choice of topic. Before we are done, you should plan on changing the name of this page to the "Easter Microplate" since that is now the accepted name. See https://ask.wikiedu.org/question/521/how-do-i-change-the-title-of-a-page/ for information on how to do this. A google scholar search for Easter Microplate will give you many more references than Easter Plate Reference 2 is pretty old and their schematic of the plate boundaries has since been refined. A more up to date reference and one that will be really useful, is Naar, D. F., & Hey, R. N. (1991). Tectonic evolution of the Easter microplate. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 96(B5), 7961-7993.

Other references are: Hey, R. N., Naar, D. F., Kleinrock, M. C., Morgan, W. P., Morales, E., & Schilling, J. G. (1985). Microplate tectonics along a superfast seafloor spreading system near Easter Island. Nature, 317(6035), 320. Schilling, J. G., Sigurdsson, H., Davis, A. N., & Hey, R. N. (1985). Easter microplate evolution. Nature, 317(6035), 325.

Yet another reference which is even more recent and potentially very useful is Neves, M. C., R. C. Searle, and M. H. P. Bott. "Easter microplate dynamics." Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 108.B4 (2003).

In terms of topics for section of your article, I would merge plate structure and boundary information since the boundaries are part of the plate structure. For history, is anything known about when and how it formed - I found a citation Matthews, Kara J., R. Dietmar Müller, and David T. Sandwell. "Oceanic microplate formation records the onset of India–Eurasia collision." Earth and Planetary Science Letters 433 (2016): 204-214.

You could also look at the interactions between the Easter microplate and the Easter hotspot which has its own wikipedia page. I think you could find some good sources for that with a google scholar search William Wilcock (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor comments 5/8/18
You have a good rough draft and I think you have distilled the key points from your source but there are two things you need to do to turn it into a draft that is ready for peer review and copy editing

1. Turn the notes into prose and format the sections so it starts to look like a Wikipedia article

2. You need to add citations to each statement so the reader knows where the statement comes from (at present you are just listing all your sources but not linking them to the text. Adding citations is easy to do in the visual editor with the cite tool.

To improve your draft.

I think your lead should start by stating where the plate is located (not a latitude/longitude) but general area and what plates it is sandwiched between - the current lead does this. I also think your lead is too long, and while all good material you might want to think what should be saved for the following sections.

I suggested several additional sources previously (on your talk page) and I do not think you have incorporated those yet. It would strengthen your article to have more than one source per section and Richard Hey has been pretty influential in understanding this area so not citing him is odd

A couple of factual corrections.

1. I do not think you can say that the Easter MP is the 7th smallest plate in the world. It is the 7th smallest in the list you cite but that list is not comprehensive because it becomes subjective when one decides what constitutes a small plate and what does not. So perhaps you want to say small plate and cite this source or just cite it for the area.

2. I do not know where you got 9 cm/yr from (no citation) but the fastest spreading center in the world is 15 cm/yr full rate ( http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HIGP/Faculty/hey/fastest.html) and I think that is pretty close to your location but you would need to check.

William Wilcock (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wünderbrot's Peer Review
Hey Sarcastaball! Here's what I think of your article thus far as I can see on your sandbox page:

Lead Section
I think this is a good start, but I'm struggling to identify where exactly it is. Would you be able to provide coordinates or zoom out of the figure on the published page? I think it'd also be beneficial if you added more links to your lead for example: ''Easter Island Nazca plate Microplate Spreading center'' Could all use links. Then I think you'd need to cite someone for your last sentence.

Structure and Tectonics
Your first paragraph could use citations, and perhaps some examples of the efforts that were made to collect data. Were there cruises dedicated to getting anomaly data? You don't mention them by name, and "multiple published journal articles" feels very weak.

I'm not a particularly experienced geologist, so I'm unsure of what you mean by "anomalously shallow". Maybe you could add an external link to explain this part?

I think this portion of your article could benefit greatly from a figure, better than what's on the published article. Would you be able to draw the different borders out?

You're very frequently saying (HeySuperfast). Does this represent a citation you mean to make?

You'll need to cite the bathymetric data on the second half of your third paragraph. Does this carry any significance, or are you just explaining what the border looks like?

Move your citation to the end of the sentence, I think that's standard Wiki formatting. You're using the same citation very frequently (1), so I'd be careful with how you use it. Are there other sources you can use to characterize the plate? You've also got lots of spots in your 5th paragraph that could use links to other Wikipedia articles. strike-slip, rift-fracture-fracture, colinear transform boundaries, trough could all use internal or external links. Make sure to cite your last sentence where you talk about Pito Deep. Why is it called that? I'm sure the reader would be curious.

I don't have much left to say about this section. Overall, I'd be very careful with your sources and make sure that you link to other pages so the reader is well aware of what you're talking about. I feel like it isn't completely balanced; don't let one of your sources write the section! Spreading rates and features are interesting, but I'm not sure if they'd be helpful for a more generalized Wikipedia audience.

Evolution
I think it'd be beneficial to reference this evolution model by name - if it has one. Do you know if there are figures available for the different stages?

For stage 1, make sure to use other sources as well. Using just the one, again, makes me question how balanced your article is or if the information on the page is considered neutral or reliable. In looking at source (1), you might be able to make the section feel more believable by incorporating parts of their methods. You could mention the GLORIA mosaic or ROTATE and MIPS. I think you do a good job summarizing what they take 5 pages or so to say, but I'm curious if there has been any research on the plate since the article was published in 1995.

For stage 2, add links to angular spreading, segmenting, and East Pacific Rise. I also think you should have another source for your last sentence, considering it's from an old paper and they're making a claim.

For the future predictions, I don't know what you mean that the west rifts will die. Would you be able to explain?

Dynamics
Resisting forces; if you're using terms like "mantle basal drag force", I think you'd benefit immensely by linking to a generalized source on the subject. As of right now, a non-geological audience wouldn't understand what these forces are nor why they are important like source (6) is making them out to be.

The driving forces section feels like speculation. Can you add more sources that back up the claims made that are more recent than 2002?

Improving your article
I think you've got a good draft that could still use some tweaks to make it friendlier to a generalized audience. Your lead is easy to understand, but I think you could make it better by specifying where it is with a good figure. I think all of the sources you use are reliable, however I think you're over-reliant on sources (1) and (6). Big chunks of your writing are sourced entirely from them, which makes me as a reader question if you're just summarizing what someone said 20 years ago rather than what is accepted today.

Wünderbrot (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tenzin Sonam's Peer Review
Hi, Sarcastaball. One thing I noticed is that there were no figures and even though you don't need one, I think it would be helpful to have at least one. Maybe one of the location of the plate.

Easter Microplate
This might be a nice section to add a picture of the map since you are already explaining where it is located.

Structure and Tectonics (Present)
I would add a picture showing the movements that you are explaining in the paragraph. Also, it would be good if you could explain what the data that were gathered were and compare how different journals that you mention compare to each other. I don't know what the HeySuperfast is about, is that just a self note for yourself? Don't forget to edit them before you finish.

Evolution
I noticed you reference one source for most of this section. Make sure that the information from that source is reliable. The Future Predictions section is a nice addition to this part.

Dynamics
If possible, it would be nice to add quantitative values for the forces of the plate in this section.

Overall
Your draft is really well organized and has a lot of information. One big thing I would suggest is adding figures as it could help non-Geologists get a better understanding of all the information given. Some specific datas for the resisting and driving forces might be useful to add, but it's up to you.

Tenzinsonam995 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Final Review 5/31
You have put a lot of work into this. I have gone through your article in the sandbox making minor edits for clarity and consistent tense, and have used the comment tool in the visual editor. My edits are on top of Emma's

You have put a lot of effort into this and it has an impressive amount of detail. Emma has made some good suggestions for shortening it without loss of meaning and I think if you follow those it will be in good shape.

Can you get rid of the bold text that seems to be randomly distributed through the article.

If you have time it would be helpful to add labels on the figure to show the features you discuss in describing the model of its evolution. That would make the text easier to follow.

You have done a good job of link to other Wikipedia articles but check it one more time to make sure there are not technical terms you have missed (you can link to articles even if they do not have the same title as the words you use if the topic is the same)

William Wilcock (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)