User:Mserdan/sandbox

I made a section on the Talk page for your sandbox with my notes Pszczolak (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Endeavor Hydrothermal Vents

Part of a 360°C black smoker chimney of the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents

The Endeavor Hydrothermal Vents are a group of hydrothermal vents in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, located 260 km (155 mi) southwest of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada . This group of hydrothermal vents lies 2,250 m (7,382 ft) below sea level in an area where the Pacific Ocean seabed is being pulled apart called the Endeavor Segment, which forms part of a larger spreading center called the Juan de Fuca Ridge.

Hydrothermal vents form in volcanically active areas, such as mid-ocean ridges where two plates are diverging, separating from each other, resulting in the formation of new crust. At such sites, water penetrates through the hot crust, causing the pressure and temperature to change, resulting in precipitation of minerals, eventually creating hydrothermal chimneys. After the hydrothermal fluids temperature decreases and mixes with the seawater, the environment will reach ideal thermal and chemical conditions that supports a unique biological community. 

Fluid Circulation

Hydrothermal vents typically form on the tectonic plate boundaries and in association with hotspots. Seawater flows through the cracks of the volcanic bed, causing a reaction after contacting the new volcanic crust. This reaction allows the hydrothermal fluids to flow up and out of the crust and into the ocean, causing a temperature gradient. The temperature gradient supplies energy and nutrients for chemoautotrophic organisms to thrive in this environment. 800 individual chimneys have been recorded over a 15 km section of the ridge.

Heat Source

Heat in the Endeavor Hydrothermal Vents are supplied by the cooling of the Earth's crust in areas of high seismic activity. The hydrothermal fluids come from below the surface of the Earth and rise up above the surface.

Deep Sea Vent Chemistry Diagram

Fluid Fluxes and Chemistry

Energy flux caused by high temperature gradients in the Endeavor Hydrothermal Vents contributed to the production of chemical reactions that were necessary for life to exist, sparking the synthesis of organic compounds. These changes in temperature are caused by the cooling of the magma once it penetrates the surface of the Earth, making contact with the seawater. These hydrothermal fluids can reach temperatures for up to 402 degrees Celcius.

Biology

Giant Tubeworms on Hydrothermal Vents

Hydrothermal vents are located at mid-ocean ridges, where an abundance of life is present, providing high biodiversity of productivity. They provide habitats for many unique species of animals. The Juan De Fuca Ridge is home to 60 unique species in the world. Specifically an the Endeavour Segment, there are 12 species that are unique to this area which do not exist anywhere else in the world including the Sea Spider (Sericosura Venticola). A sulfide-hosted microbe from this site can live in environments up to 121 degrees Celcius, which is the record for the upper limit for life.  

Marine Protected Area

Marine Protected Area (MPA) Designation

Due to the rich biodiversity in the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents, the Canada's Oceans Act declared this site as the first Marine Protected Area in 2003. The MPA management ensures that human activities help instead of hinder the environment including conserving and protecting the biodiversity of the space, while increasing research and public awareness of the environment as well. All regulations can be found in the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine Protected Area Regulations.

Cabled Observatory

Since 1987, Canada has been utilizing their cabled observatory called North Pacific Time-Series Underwater Experiment (NEPTUNE). NEPTUNE was founded by the Science Foundation's Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI).

Scientific Discoveries

The Endeavor Hydrothermal vents are home to several important scientific discoveries which include:

• 1982: discovery of the first vents in Juan de Fuca Ridge
• 1984: exploration of the first extensive seafloor ore deposits
• 1989: discovery of glowing vents, which are vents that emit thermal radiation due to high temperature fluids above above 350°C coming out of the vent.
• 1990: discovery of highest neutral water temperatures known to Earth
• 1991: first extensive usage of undersea robotic vehicles
• Discovery of the organism that holds the record for the upper temperature limit to life (121 deg C)
• First evidence that hydrothermal plumes were zones of greatly enhanced zooplankton aggregation
• First measurements of biomass fluxes relating to hydrothermal plumes

Zooplankton

To this day, the Endeavor Hydrothermal Vents still continues to be a site where scientists such as biologists, geologists, physicists, microbiologists, and oceanographers gravitate toward to find new discoveries.

See also

• Volcanism of Canada portal

• Volcanism in Canada
• List of volcanoes in Canada

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Week 5: Outline of Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Wikipedia Article

• Intro - definitions (location, what hydrothermal vents are)
• physical properties
• biological properties
• properties specific to the region
• what research is being done in this region

What's missing in the article?

• Overall this article needs reliable, working resources, a variety of sources, information in general about the topic and useful images. This article is also lacking a basic introduction to a hydrothermal vent.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your references look like they will provide a good foundation. Use Web of Science's citation search to build out from these as needed. Erik 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of what you have written below does not fully addressed the question for the part of the Week 4 assignment of "write a few sentences about what you plan to contribute to the selected article" - you have written more of a critique than a plan of action. William Wilcock (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For references there are a huge number that you will find in Georef or Web of Science (your challenge will be finding the most important). A key recent review that is written for the general scientist is http://tos.org/oceanography/article/endeavour-segment-of-the-juan-de-fuca-ridge-one-of-the-most-remarkable-plac Also it is a site of the ONC cabled observatory https://www.oceannetworks.ca/installations/observatories/northeast-pacific/endeavour Its also marine protected area http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/endeavour-eng.html William Wilcock (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

ARTICLE: Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents (From Wikipedia)

Overall this article needs reliable, working resources, a variety of sources, information in general about the topic and useful images. This article is also lacking a basic introduction to a hydrothermal vent.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? In the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents article, none of the facts are followed with reference to a reliable source. They are all just listed at the bottom of the page. The links to the references do not work which needs to be corrected. Thus, these facts are not from a reliable reference.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, however, there isn't much information in this article. When adding to this article, I will add more relevant information.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

This article does not have heavily biased material and thus portrays to be neutral. This article only references one source however, which is the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and could use different sources.

Are there illustrations/images that could be usefully added?

More images could be used in balance with more text. I would use a map, projecting the outline of the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents that are located in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.

Possible sources:

• The Ecology of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents by Cindy Van Dover

• Geology of a vigorous hydrothermal system on the Endeavour Segment, Juan de Fuca Ridge by Journal of Geophysical Research
• Microbial diversity of a sulfide black smoker in main endeavour hydrothermal vent field, Juan de Fuca Ridge from the Journal of Microbiology
• Magnitude and variance of near-bottom horizontal heat flux at the Main Endeavour hydrothermal vent field by Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems Journal

____________________________________________________________

For the week 3 assignment you made two good additions. Note that for the Ice Shove article you added a sentence and a citation but left other citations at the end of the sentence you added rather than the sentence before where they belonged. Somebody else fixed that William Wilcock (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

ARTICLE: Plate Tectonics (From Wikipedia)

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? In the Plate Tectonics Article, not every fact is followed with a reference to a reliable source. Some facts don't have a reference at all, and some facts are followed by unreliable sources such as a philosophical magazine article. For example, under the "Driving forces related to gravity" in the third paragraph, none of the information in that paragraph is cited with a reference. All of the sources cited are from reliable books, articles, and contains external links to some videos.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The article focused well on staying on topic and providing relevant material. The article started off with basic "key principles", followed by "types of plate boundaries, driving forces of plate motion, development of the theory, implications for biogeography, plate reconstruction, current plates, and other celestial bodies (planets, moons)."

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article does not have heavily biased material and thus portrays to be neutral. All the sources come from scientific institutions. For example, one of the articles called "Tectonic implications of Mars crustal magnetism" is cited from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Are there sub-topics that are overrepresented, underrepresented or missing? The "Development of the theory" topic was overrepresented due to having too many sub-topics that contained a lot of information. This topic should be condensed down for the reader to understand the basic concepts of the development of this theory. A topic that was well represented was the other celestial bodies. It provided four examples and provides and interesting perspective that the reader might not think of at the end of the article.

Do the illustrations and images add to the article and are there illustrations/images that could be usefully added? The images in the article are very relevant and helpful to allow the reader to visually understand the concepts of plate tectonics in the article. The only image that the article could do without was the "Alfred Wegener in Greenland in the winter of 1912-13" under "Continental Drift," but it provides a nice visual break-up in the long text in this topic.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The links do work, and none of the articles I looked at had major plagiarism. Due to the fact that this article is on a scientific subject, there are slight close paraphrasing in some of the structure of the paragraphs, which is very difficult to avoid.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? All of the information cited is useful and some of the sources are old, but still relevant in the basic theories of plate tectonics. For example, the "On the secular cooling of the earth" by W. Thompson in the Philosophical Magazine was published in 1863 but still provides critical information on the cooling of the earth.

Check the "talk" page - what conversation is the Wikipedia community having behind the scenes about how to represent these topics? Under the "talk" page, people are discussing what should and shouldn't be on the article and why. For example, under NPOV, someone states "No, we don't need links to fringe articles just because some true belieber is objected there. Flood geology is not an opposing view - it's religious pseudoscience."

What is the article rated? This article was rated as a B-Class article, which has the criteria of being "mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards," which is posted in the Wikipedia website.

How does the way these subjects are discussed on Wikipedia differ from how they have been discussed in your prior Earth Science classes? The way these subjects are discussed on Wikipedia are very similar on how they're discussed in my Earth Science classes. They both start with a basic concept of the subject, and go into further detail followed by some illustrations and videos.

Mserdan (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————————————————————

ARTICLE: Convergent boundary (From Wikipedia) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? In the Convergent boundary article, there is only one citation listed under the Notes section. The source is from the School of Earth Sciences in the University of Leeds, and the website does not seem like a reliable source because in the web page, there is no reference section to see where the information is coming from. Also, the webpage is also poorly designed and not aesthetically pleasing.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in this article is relevant to the article topic. Also, the structure of this article is very unorganized and confusing for the reader to understand the concepts.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, the article is neutral and there are no biased claims or frames that appear in the article. All of the information is scientific, but isn't backed up by any resources except for one.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? The only source cited was from the University of Leeds, which portrays to be a neutral source, however it deems to be an unreliable source. The rest of the information in this article is not backed up by any resource.

Are there sub-topics that are overrepresented, underrepresented or missing? This article doesn't have any overrepresented articles, however, it is missing a lot of information. Information that would be useful for this article are theories that are related to convergent boundaries and the science behind it. Another thing they could add is more information on volcanoes and earthquakes and how its relevant to our world today.

Do the illustrations and images add to the article and are there illustrations/images that could be usefully added? The illustrations of the different combinations of oceanic and continental convergent boundaries were helpful to understand the basic concepts of convergent boundaries. This article lacks in illustrations and could be useful when talking about the volcanic arcs and oceanic trench.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? There is only one citation and the link to that does work. In the article, because there is only one citation, it is safe to say that majority of this article is plagiarized due to the lack of citations.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Due to the lack of citations, there is no way of determining of this information is out of date. The only citation was from 2001, which isn't from too long ago, but that source does not seem reliable.

Check the "talk" page - what conversation is the Wikipedia community having behind the scenes about how to represent these topics? The only comment in the "talk" page is someone from our own class, OCEAN 410, stating that this article lacks citations and notes, with its only source being unreliable.

What is the article rated? The article is rated as a "Start-Class," which its criteria is described to be "an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources," which is from the Wikipedia cite.

How does the way these subjects are discussed on Wikipedia differ from how they have been discussed in your prior Earth Science classes? Particularly in this article, my prior Earth Science class go into more detail behind the convergent plate boundaries and the theories behind it, as well as showing many illustrations and real-world issues about the topic.

You have written two really thorough critiques addressing all the questions and including specific examples. It is nicely formatted so easy to read. Nice job William Wilcock (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)