User talk:Jalyn Buckley/sandbox

4/3 Assignment - Uh oh! Looks like you forgot to do this assignment! Make sure you get the training (Evaluating Articles & Sources) and the notes in your sandbox done! EKM2018 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) YES! Perfect thanks for getting this done! And nice work with the extra credit! EKM2018 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
4/7 Assignment - Nice work getting the trainings done and adding to content/citation for a page! Don't forget about extra credit opportunities! EKM2018 (talk) 18:07, 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) 17:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
4/21 Assignment - Looks like you got your sources together. I can't remember though, what was your original topic idea? Let's try to find you some more non-journal articles. Also maybe add what you are hoping to add to the article based on your posted bibliography to the topic's talk page. Try to think about how your sources fit in your outline and if you need more or if they are indicating the need to develop a new section. (+ 2 extra credit) EKM2018 (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
4/28 Assignment - Increase your "lead" section and don't forget to think about how you will fit in what is already posted on the page. What potential figures do you want to add? How does the "Rheology" section fit with your current sources and what you have outlined and with the flow of the page? I think your current outline is good and focuses on getting in the background without getting overwhelmed with overly complex information, but I also think you have the opportunity to go into more detail than your current headings imply, especially based on the sources you show so far. Keep it up! EKM2018 (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
5/3 Presentation Notes - Does double subduction mean that there are any focused extensional forces in the middle that could result in spreading or is the plate ultimately shrinking? You could have a section on the fate of the plate, or at least include that somewhere. This would require having specific plate rates. Are there really no other global examples? If so, reference them. If not, make that clear because it's a significant defining trait. Really use that Zhang 2017 source! Explain what fully subsumed means... Nice outline, and so don't feel like you need to get overly technical. Going into detail doesn't mean getting overly technical. It looks really good so far and I think you have next steps well laid out. EKM2018 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
5/5 Assignment - First Draft Notes - I think this is a good start. I think you could expand a lot of your descriptions - be very clear. I also think you should really expand the debate on if it is active or not based on observed seismicity and what that would mean for the fate of the plate. You have a lot of sources but only use 6 out of the 11. I think you could add more meat to this topic from those other sources? From my previous comments - what are the plate rates? Is this really the only example of double subduction? If so, state that! Also be sure to properly cite everything! EKM2018 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
5/26 Assignment - Second Draft Notes - REALLY WELL DONE! I am so impressed by the progress of this page - seriously. It is concise and clear and has a good length of valuable information with really well done figures. I think there is some wording that could be fixed and a little organization in the Tectonic Setting section but overall I think you are VERY close to being done! Nice work! Take my edits (you can unbold and fix the strikethroughs when you accept those edits - didn't want to just change things without showing you what I changed) and Will's and move it to the main page! EKM2018 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources Feedback

This is a great topic. This is a really complex region and while there is already a short page, I find it incomprehensible and I do not think it isreigh. In the current page, the figure that is included is unclear (what is the difference between red, purple and green boundaries) and doesn't relate to "current theory" in that neither then Halmahera or of Sangihe plate are shown. So you challenge is to rewrite this so the reader understand the tectonics of this plate.

McCaffrey, R. , Silver, E. A. and Raitt, R. W. (2013) - this paper is I think 1980 not 2013.

I think your final citation (Zhang et al., 2017) is really key. First of all it is recent, so it provides a nice synthesis of previous work related to understanding the tectonics. Second it has really good figures. Figure 1a and b show the current tectonic setting and a cross section and could be the basis for simple figure that you create that explain it. Figure 3 shows the tectonic history of the region. In terms of your sections, the convention for Wikipedia pages is that the introductory section does not have a heading. I think you need sections on current tectonic configuration and tectonic history, that would lead naturally into your section on future projections. William Wilcock (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wünderbrot's Peer Review

Hey Jalyn! Here's what I think of the draft of your article on your sandbox:

Header

Make sure to cite your first sentence. What classifies it as a mciroplate? Can you link to what a microplate is? Would you be able to link the Molucca SEa Collision Complex to this? Make sure not to plagiarize that article!

Something else you could do here: The published page has a figure that I find hard to interpret. Would you be able to find something better?

Boundaries/Location

Can you rename this section to boundaries and location or setting? Some things you could link: pacific ocean, celebes, halmahera islands, sula islands, celebes sea, philippine sea, halmahera sea, mindanao, ophiolitic ridge, uplift'. As someone that knows little about the region, some internal links would be very beneficial here! If you're writing for a more generalized Wiki audience, make sure to explain ophiolites and uplift as well. Are there any other sources you can use to explain the location?

Geology

Again, add links to help non-geology experts. I think you should add a sentence or two on the minerals and rock types associated with the plate. Have there been studies at the Molucca Sea Plate where they got dredges from the sea floor, or is the only insight of the sea floor from surface-lying ophiolites?

Tectonics

Consider renaming this section, too. Site the first sentence. Can you provide a follow-up sentence with a result that proves it has completely subducted? Don't use quotation marks, it makes you look like you are quoting source (2) which might violate plagiarism. I think your second paragraph here would benefit rom a figure where you can show the inverted U-shape. What does a thick, low velocity layer mean? Why is that significant? Can you quantify it? I don't think this section is well structured, consider breaking it up into subsections of "current tectonics, past tectonics, and a history of quakes". Your last sentence feels like it should be introduced earlier.

Debate

Does this warrant its own section, or should you just state it in your header? If there is serious debate, add a lot to it with a lot of sources! A debate section is where you'd most likely be in trouble with balanced, neutral content in avoiding bias or opinion.

See Also

I think you should mention the collision zone by directly linking to it in your boundaries/location section, and you wouldn't need it here. Are there other microplates that have processes like the Molucca? Are there other historical examples of double subduction? I think the "see also" section should be for linking the reader to other articles based on their curiosity.

Improving your article

I think your draft could use a handful of tweaks to make a good contribution to the existing article - mostly by adding internal links. Consider restructuring your tectonic activity section, and expand on the subsections you mention therein. So far, so good! Wünderbrot (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Review (5/21)

You have the basis for a good page. Of all the student articles, this is the one that needs figures most, so I would get them in as soon as possible. Focus on clarification, incorporating all your sources, linking to other wikipedia articles.

My detailed comments are

• General
  • Every time you use a technical term or a geographic/tectonic name, cite the Wikipedia page. This takes time to do but it will make your article so much more accessible

• Header/Introduction
  • I do not think the content of this quite correct - it is too technical right off the bat. Where is the plate geographically in the world, how big is it, and before getting into all the details of other microplates nearby what is the broader tectonic setting - subduction in the Western Pacific - one of many microplates sandwiched between the Pacific, Australian, Philippine Sea and Eurasian plates. Then your last sentence is great but without Cenozoic since that is a technical term that is unnecessary to describe why the plate is significant.

• Boundaries/Location
  • The title of this should be Geography
  • It needs a map showing all these features to accompany it

• Tectonic Setting
  • Now you need a new section describing all the plates in the region and their configuration. Some of this can come from your current introduction
  • This will be much easier with a map that is already on the web page (you might want to add a distance scale)
  • Also you may want to create a somewhat more zoomed out tectonic map from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg

which I am pretty sure the copyright on this allows you to do.

• Geology
  • I think this might be better after Tectonic Activity / Plate Tectonics
  • There are a couple of geographic features - you need a map showing them

• Tectonic Activity / Plate Mechanics
  • Choose one title. I suggest "Tectonics".
  • "The scientific community has come to the consensus that the Molucca Sea Plate has been completely subducted and subsumed by the overriding Halmahera and Sangihe Plates." - there is no citation here. The current article says that most scientists believe this. You are now saying it is a consensus. Where does that come from? To me it is odd that the plate is shown on multiple tectonic maps if there is agreement that it does not exist anymore?
  • A cartoon of double subduction would be great, reproduced from one of your sources.

• Scientific Debate / Future Projections
  • This is a stub. Spell out DDS? If you are going to expand it, choose one title but it seems like the current sentence could go in the Tectonics section.

• Citations
• You have 12 sources but are only citing 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Wilcock (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Final Review 6/1

This page is in really great shape

Added a few comments and minor edits on top of Emma's using the visual editing tool.

It is really well organized. The figures are great.

other than responding to the embedded comments all you have to do is move this to the mainspace.

William Wilcock (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)