User talk:Marcelo.silka/sandbox

Organization

1. Contents are not organized into different sub- sections. However, although the author is only working on to improve one section of an article, maybe different subsections, organized by the different techniques (e.g. isotope geochemistry, seismic tomography and geodynamical modeling) the author wish to discuss, could make the organization of the passage clearer.
2. No subheadings are used. Consider using them as suggested above?
3. Each paragraph is centered around one single topic. However, the organization and transition of each paragraph could be more polished. A suggested outline could be: In the first paragraph, briefly introduce ALL (or almost) theories regarding the evolution of EAR (the original article does a better job on this, as the author moved some of its material to the third paragraph), and then in the subsequent sections, either organize by techniques or by similar theories. This could reduce the sense of abrupt transitions.

Contents

1. The author did a good job summarizing conclusions of research articles. However, current- level of discussion is probably not sufficient for a class- project scale work. More details should be added for each technique. Examples of more details could include: 1). more explanations on the conclusions themselves, as some of them are not stated very clearly (for example, the second to last paragraph). 2). advantages and disadvantages of each method? 3). Caveats of each method. 4). Relations between each conclusion. Which methods yield consistent result and which ones do not agree with each other?
2. Current contents are all supported by sufficient materials from strandard sources. However, I personally think that the contents should be greatly more expanded, and therefore more sources could be included. For example, to discuss point 4). suggested above, all seismic tomography studies that show representative results should be included.

Citations

1. Given the current content, citations are added adequately and appropriately. Formats are also perfect.
2. All citations added by the author are reflected in the References section.

Grammar and Style

Minor grammatical issues. Some sentences might need a re- write to make them more clear/ concise. Specific changes highlighted in the Word document.

Below are reviews from second draft

Introduction

• First paragraph: Second sentence has grammar issue. Maybe: evidence has been found in favor of...
• Good transition in between the first two paragraphs.
• Third paragraph: first sentence has a typo 'confirmation'.
• Not sure about the logic of transition in the second and third paragraph. The second seems to be talking about the most accepting theory for formation of EAR, but that theory seems to say the "thinning lithosphere behaves like a mid-ocean ridge". Not sure how is this related with mantle plumes.

Isotope geochemistry

• I think you can remove the "research" on each heading.
• First sentence is ok. "However" transition should be more well written. The first study is saying you have two sources while the second study is saying you only have one source. What you have now is saying "However, there is another study." and the transition is only clear why this second study is different from the first after the "However" sentence.
• Third sentence. "Co-existence" of the superplume and what else?

Seismic tomography

• The first sentence is not easily understandable. Needs to re- write.
• "northeastern EAR".

Geodynamical modeling

• I think it should be the "initiation" of continental break-up, not the "induction".

Overall

Putting materials into different sections definitely avoided some of the confusing transitions before. Still have some grammatical issues, unclear transition logic and convoluted sentence structure. The rest looks good.