Talk:Rainbow Vent Field

4/3 Assignment - Looks like you are up to date on trainings but don't have any notes from the Plate Tectonics/Boundaries readings in your sandbox! Be sure to do those parts of the assignment! Otherwise you are using your sandbox and staying up to date really well! Nice work! EKM2018 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
4/7 Assignment - Really nice work citing various pages (extra credit!). EKM2018 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
4/10 Assignment - It doesn't seem like the topic you picked is the same as what you have notes on in your sandbox. You should add to these notes, thinking about what your sources could be, what the article needs and what you will add. (-0.5 point) EKM2018 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
4/21 @EKM2018, I've added about 10 sources to the Rainbow Vent Field (in the sandbox). There's a lot of journals with a handful of non-journal sources in there, but I haven't read through all the material thoroughly as of yet. I plan on chugging through them in this upcoming week to get better information out of them. Wünderbrot (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
4/21 Assignment - Great work!!! (+2 extra credit) You are doing great trying to get in some other non-journal articles. I think you current ones are good and trying to find others could help steer you away from the more technical explanations (or be used to help you define more technical explanations!). EKM2018 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
4/28 Assignment - Also great job with this working draft! What are you thinking about in terms of figures you might add that would supplement this? Also be sure to check your citations - it looks like in the "History" section that the citations are working properly and the whole link is put in the paragraph. EKM2018 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
5/1 Presentation Feedback - What is serpentinization? You will need to be careful to explain any technical or jargony terms since you have a lot of info. Really nice outline and focus on plagiarism - keep it up! EKM2018 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes - Will's comments are really good and I think provide you with a lot of direction. It's sometimes hard to know what is too technical or jargon, what needs to be explained or simplified. I thought I could list a few examples that would benefit from even a quick explanation in text to provide clarity (let me know if you need help wording any!). Nice strong basis - great length. No need to add more material, just perfect it. You also need to fix your citations in the history and geologic section. I even think you could make things a little more concise and formal in wording "With relatively little basalt to be found within a kilometer..." = "With relatively little basalt within a kilometer..."
Technical Examples: massif, "uplifted gabbro and perdiotite" = uplifted oceanic crust and upper mantle rock, gabbro and perdiotite, serpentinization (you describe phase changes in hydrothermal circulation and talk about olivine replaced by serpentine, but you don't ever explicitly say what serpentinization is in a cohesive way and use the term several times before these descriptions), "Hydronium ions Fluids also contain..." - this sentence is very technical, you need to at least say what it means/why it is significant. Hopefully these examples help! EKM2018 (talk) 15:44, 10 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. It is still rather technical but I think you do a really great job here. I have a few notes to help polish it up but I think you are VERY close to being done. With the intro - I would simplify it a little, perhaps by putting the discovery info as the first part of the discovery section. You have a lot of acronyms, even one in the intro (MoMAR). Be sure if you say what they stand for (and/or link them to a page!). I still kind of wish you would define phase separation in layman's terms - your figure starts to do that, but it would be helpful since you don't link it to a page? In the Vent Field section, you have a few citations to fix (you put in the paper but you have the citation as a superscript. Also, where is the example of the shrimp photo taken? Anyway, nice work! Very close to being done! EKM2018 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback

It looks like you are making great progress. In general a lot of your points are quite technical so you will need some more basic information - i.e., how basalt and ultramafic systems differ, a basic explanation of phase separation. Also what is the basic structure of the field - number + size of vents, area, fluid temperature - it seems this could be in the lead off paragraph

Have there been any geophysical studies that have imaged the subsurface structure at Rainbow

There is a page that lists vent fields in the area including Rainbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vents_and_seamounts_of_the_Azores so you can make sure it links to your page and vice-versa

Just googling I found a proposal to create a marine protected area here so that might be interesting to research a little further http://charlie-gibbs.org/charlie/NEA_Website/Publication/Submissions/OSPAR2005/Rainbow_Proposal_WWF_4May05.pdf http://mobil.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Rainbow_Heisse_Tiefseequellen.pdf William Wilcock (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback 5/8/18

You have put a lot of work into this and its quite impressive. Some comments

You can greatly expand the number of links to other wikipedia articles - basically for every technical terms - in about 3 sample lines I came up with hydronium, ultramafic, alkanes,phenol, PAHS, fatty acid - all of which have their own pages. Without this your article is going to be very inaccessible. Indeed, I think you also need to focus on simplifying the text so at least the first paragraph of each section is accessible to a non-geoscientist.

I think you need to add a section on "Significance", early on, which explains why this is an important field. Why is it so interesting that it is ultramafic hosted rather than being in a basalt.

History Section (rename to discovery or exploration since so as not to be confused with geological history) - this section is a bit repetitive and I think could be shortened by citing the cruise pages as citations and not URLs in parentheses, not giving cruise names. It seems to me that the key historical cruises are the ones to find it from ship based studies and the first to visit it with a submersible/ROV. You might just limit the discussion of other studies to stating that it was visited in 200X, 200Y ... for LIST OF OBJECTIVES.

Geological setting - needs citations

Hydrothermal circulation - are there sediment layers at Rainbow or is this a general description of hydrothermal circulation. Since wikipedia has a page on hydrothermal circulation you might want to just focus on a description that is specific to Rainbow.

Your phase separation section does not really explain in plain language what phase separation is (i.e., the formation of two phases which at low pressure is going to be a vapor and a fluid with salinity a little above seawater and at higher supercritical pressures, a brine and a fluid with a salinity a little below seawater. This section is very technical and needs to be revised to make it more accessible to the non specialist.

Microbes - Remove "like bacteria and archaea" from the title. Again this is very technical and has a lot of jargon

Can you find additional figures (e.g., photos) that are in the public domain. You could annotate your existing map and add another that zooms in to show the field.

William Wilcock (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeff's Peer review

Lead

• In your paper, the dates of discovery don't match. 1997 here, 1994 later. Either that, or I'm not understanding clearly.
• Otherwise, it does map out the paper well and includes key details. Could possibly include a key detail about the biology because I feel a lot of people will look up this page for such information and will want to know if you have included such information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Significance

• Well written and well referenced
• You switch from "kilometers" to "km" abbreviation without adjustment. I always use the word the first time I use it with the abbreviation in parentheses next to it so you can utilize the abbreviation for the rest of the time and the reader knows what you mean. i.e.: "kilometers (km)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Discovery

• Well put into chronological order
• Lots of use of abbreviations I don't know. I understand many of them, such as the abbreviations for expeditions are not necessary, but maybe ROV and CTD could not be abbreviated in first usage
• Well formatted and I will probably use this format to create a similar section on my own page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Geologic setting

• Good detail, but I'm unsure if all information is cited properly. Is all information before each citing from the cite that follows the multiple sentences? Maybe cite at the beginning and at the end of the material so that the reader knows where all the information is coming from. Could also possibly separate by paragraphs maybe?

Hydrothermal Circulation

• Missing some citations in second paragraph and still unclear as in like previous section with other material as well
• Good explaination in first paragraph. Is this coming from your own knowledge? Not sure if we're supposed to include such stuff.
• Last sentence, second paragraph could use some rewording. Unclear.
• Food for thought: I feel like "Hydrothermal Circulation" should be its own stub and this section should be titled "Effects of hydrothermal circulation at Rainbow" or something of the sort with keeping the information to Rainbow only. Obviously there is no stub, so the information is somewhat necessary to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Phase Separation

• Again, I feel "Phase Separation" should be its own stub, but necessary to include because there isn't one yet
• Very unclear to me what you mean by "endmember". Of which minerals? Or is this talking about a different type of endmember (which I'm not familiar with any others)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Vent Field Bio

• This section is well cited. No qualms here on that :)
• Interesting section to include. I dare not comment on the content though seeing as how I haven't seen approximately 90% of the terminology used before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Human Uses

• First paragraph, last sentence. Proof? Citation? Sounds opinionated or biased.
• Appears to coverall the details. Well stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Overall

• Well written and resourced page. Great language for general audience and information is well summarized.
• Citations could use a little more work in placement and a few missing ones in which I mention above.
• Sections used are necessary, but may need to be updated in future as stubs for specific sets of information are put into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastaball (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kenny's Peer Review

Overall, very well written and informative page! You do a good job and separating your information and ideas into your sections. Other than a few minor discrepancies, your page overall well organized. I would just rearrange some of your sections and add information into other parts (indicated below) to shorten up your sections a little and make it flow better. Good job on the amount of credible and reliable sources you have included, as well as the range and scope of information you have collected. Keep up the good work!

Lead Section

• Solid word choice usage and summary of the vent field.
• You do a good job at explaining Rainbow's discovery and importance.
• In your paragraph you indicate the field to be located at 36°14'N, while in the image's description it 36°13'N. I would just double check to make sure which one it is and be consistent with its coordinates.

Significance

• This is useful information to include, but maybe you could just include this in the introduction of your lead header to minimize sections?

Discovery and Expeditions

• Good job at putting each event in chronological order.
• If possible, maybe briefly explain the the organizations/agencies in charge of the cruises and explain what "HEAT" and "FLORES" stand for.

Geologic Setting

• Great section that is very informative and contains concise language. I would maybe make this your second section behind your introduction, and move it before your Discovery section.

Hydrothermal Circulation and Phase Separation

• Your wording and explanations of both topics are very well written, but I think you should focus more on the processes occurring at Rainbow rather than the overall concepts of both topics.
• Maybe shorten down both sections to contain information that only pertains to Rainbow, while still including any necessary information on the processes of each.

Vent Field Biology

• Really interesting and well summarized section, as I am biased for personally being more interested in the biological oceanography. If you have more information on this section (I think I remember you mentioning that during your presentation), I would include it here.
• You could maybe add that the chemotrophs chemosynthesize to utilize energy from H2 and H2S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis Here is this for reference as well as if you want to link it to your page.

Human Uses and Preservation

• Again, you do a good job with grammar and word choice.
• I think there is just one typo where you wrote "...ore extraction and mining are another activity than may upset ecosystems of the massif", but mean "that" rather than "than". — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAlder10 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Final Review 5/30

I like this article. It represents a lot of work

I agree with Emma that the Phase Separation section could benefit with an opening paragraph that explains the process simply. Something like "When seawater is heated to a high enough temperature it will form a second phase. At pressure below the critical pressure (VALUE), the seawater boils a produces a vapor phase. At pressure above the critical pressure a saline brine forms as the second phase. In the subsurface, gravitational forces can lead the two phases to separate ..."

"When the waters circulating deep within Rainbow rise to a high enough pressure or temperature, they can acquire or precipitate elements such as chlorine, which is often normalized as there are few reactions that remove it from seawater" - This sentence is confusing since it seems to suggest that chlorine can be acquired or precipitated but then says that it cannot because there are a few reactions that change it. Please revise or eliminate given my suggestions for the opening paragraph

"Some of the biogenic alkanes found within vent fluids are suggestive of sulfide-oxidizing bacteria or archaea.[27] However, there is also abundant evidence of abiotic production of organic and inorganic molecules at Rainbow, such as methane and carbonate, which may have been supportive of early life (McDermott et al. 2015)" - Need to fix the McDermott et al. citation so that it is in Wikipedia format

I see a warning at the end about adding the article to categories. I would suggest you try to do that based on looking at the similar articles (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endeavour_Hydrothermal_Vents)

William Wilcock (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)