Talk:Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Review by Martial Morrison[edit]

General[edit]

Overall Matt, great article. I enjoy how you give us more than just the geology of the volcanic belt because the page shouldn't be limited, in this case. Is there a way to put references on the first figure? There's many facts in the box; where did you find those facts?

Specifics[edit]

Right at the beginning, "The Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (Eje Volcánico Transversal) also known as the Transvolcanic Belt" - I would insert a comma before "also known as". In the first paragraph, the word "proportion" is odd, to me. I would consider changing this term. In the history section, "The main brittle fault systems geometry, kinematics, and age", the word systems needs an apostrophe. System's, because it's ownership. The system's -> geometry, kinematics, age. In "cause of flat slab subduction", "The Trans-Mexican Volcanic belt's flat slab is confined between ~101°W and 96°W, this region may be explained by thicker continental crust.", the comma here should really be a semicolon, because the two statements are both full sentences. On step one of the formation section, you need to include a comma between the following two sentences: ". Magmatism migrated away from the trench, moving northeast towards the Gulf of Mexico—giving the arc its characteristic E-W orientation[2][3] The inland push of the arc showed progressively drier melting, and eventually slab melting began to occur—suggesting flattening of the subducted slab."

Geography, Region, Peaks, Ecology[edit]

These sections aren't bad; I like that you added ecology and other science facts even though this course and page really focuses on the geology. The thing is, you don't have any references in this section, and that's not cool. The mountain heights need references, as should your ecology facts.

References[edit]

This section is weird. There are seven numbered references, and then one more reference with a bullet point. Is there a reason these are separate? Additionally, you should try to find a way to add more references. Webb is looking for more than this; you'll benefit from adding more.


Mmorr42 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

O'Leary Reply[edit]

Thanks, Martial! Yea, the Geography, Region, Peaks, Ecology were there previously (copied and pasted draft in), but I'll be sure to work on improving them -- and including the proper references. I forgot to cite the info boxes, so i'll definitely make a revisit to them. Appreciate the grammar tips as well, not my strong suit.

Comments, Austin[edit]

Great article,, nicely organized. - First paragraph: Title: I think you can eliminate history because here you mainly describe the volcanic belt as a phyisogrpahic feature with a geological context. - First Paragraph, last 3 sentences: 1) maybe a bit too much detail for this section. Trim down to the essentials and use as a transition statement into the geological frame work and / or to lead into the geological evolution. 2) Is the mountain range orientation a product of the fault reactivation or the stratovolcaone orientation? This was a bit confusing. Plus this was intriguing. You can work in the details into the geological evolution. - Geological evolution: Mention to refer to the third figure to visualize your step by step explanation. Nice walk through. I think here you can add in the details of the reactivation and such to its current orientation. Ajamesm28 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply, O'Leary[edit]

Thanks, Austin! Those are some great tips I'll follow out. I wasn't sure with the first paragraph, last three sentences, since I felt like I needed to add a explanation. I'll make some changes to improve it.

Feedback from David[edit]

I like that you put the original name/translation there in the title. I feel like maybe Geography could come first, as sort of an introductory/general information section, and maybe the Geologic Evolution could go before the geologic framework, but that's really up to you! You might include more articles in the "See Also" section, like the geographical region, the main article for some topics (such as volcanoes, volcanic belts, etc.), stuff like that. Otherwise, not much to comment on, great article!

Tequila Volcano[edit]

Not part of the chain? 2001:56A:F414:D300:BC28:8F12:F022:3FE1 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "transvolcanic" actually mean?[edit]

Wiktionary lacks an entry. I'd imagine it being something like "across or through volcanoes"; is it more technical? Equinox 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)