Jump to content

User:ErraticGeologist/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 34: Line 34:
I am still a bit skeptical
I am still a bit skeptical
A key question that your bulleted points do not address are the origin of the Nazca Ridge - your Ray et al. (2012) discusses this in its introduction but there may be better sources. It is a hotspot feature. I found this older reference
A key question that your bulleted points do not address are the origin of the Nazca Ridge - your Ray et al. (2012) source discusses this in its introduction but there may be better sources. It is a hotspot feature. I found this older reference
PILGER JR, R. H., & Handschumacher, D. W. (1981). The fixed-hotspot hypothesis and origin of the Easter—Sala y Gomez—Nazca trace. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 92(7), 437-446.
PILGER JR, R. H., & Handschumacher, D. W. (1981). The fixed-hotspot hypothesis and origin of the Easter—Sala y Gomez—Nazca trace. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 92(7), 437-446.
In terms of sections, I think your article could include sections on Physiography and geological setting, Formation, History, Interactions with the margin (erosion, uplift - Fitzcarrald Arch), impacts on Amazonia
In terms of sections, I think your article could include sections on Physiography and geological setting, Formation (and links to current hotspot), History, Interactions with the margin (erosion, uplift - Fitzcarrald Arch), impacts on Amazonia
[[User:William Wilcock|William Wilcock]] ([[User talk:William Wilcock|talk]]) 22:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
[[User:William Wilcock|William Wilcock]] ([[User talk:William Wilcock|talk]]) 22:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:02, 26 April 2018

Assignment 2: Evaluating Wiki articles

Plate tectonics

  • Former feature article, demoted in 2008
  • Missing lots of citations
  • My understanding is that the geo community didn't fully accept this until the late 60s, and 50s to 60s is a broad time frame. this seems biased.
  • Different sections contradict the time frame of widespread acceptance claims presented in the introduction
  • The section on continent could use some geologic timeline terminology, instead of just numerical ages. Again, so many missing citations...
  • Maybe it's convention (haven't spent much time on Wikipedia before), but I find the reference section confusing that way it is sectioned off as references, books, and articles, but there are still some full references in the references that could be in the books or articles area... I think I comprehensive section would be best
  • Overall I found this article to be poorly cited, despite plenty of reference material, and to be contradictory as to dates of acceptance

Convergent Boundary

  • Not a bad article, good for a layperson to understand the basics, but needs so many more sources of information and citations.
  • Could use more figures to illustrate processes. It's hard to visualize things like volcanic arcs if you have little to no experience on the subject!

Nazca Ridge

This article needs geographic, geologic, and spatial information about the Nazca Ridge. Also, tectonic implications of oblique ridge subduction should be addressed. Finally, continental crust deformation implications of the Nazca Ridge subduction will be added, i.e. the uplift of the Fitzcarrald Arch. I might start a Fitzcarrald Arch stub as well, since there is no Wiki page yet.

References

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Just building my reference list, with a useful fact from each source. The article will be up by the end of May.

  • The Fitzcarrald Arch covers 400,000 km2 [1]
  • The Nazca Ridge crust is 18 3 km thick [2]
  • The Nazca Ridge and plate are subducting into the Peru-Chile Trench[3]
  • The Nazca Ridge began forming from the Cretaceous to the Tertiary. The remaining unsubducted portion is Tertiary in age[4]
  • The Nazca Plate subducts at a 30o angle to a depth of 100-120 km, then flattens out and continues to subduct horizontally to a distance 700 km inland[5]
  • Oceanic crust can remain buoyant for up to 40 Ma[6]
  • The Nazca is an aseismic ridge[7]
  • The exposed Nazca Ridge is 200 km wide, >1000 km long, and up to 1.5 km high. 900 km of ridge have subducted already[8]
  1. ^ a b Regard, V.; Lagnous, R.; Espurt, N.; Darrozes, J.; Baby, P.; Roddaz, M.; Calderon, Y.; Hermoza, W. "Geomorphic evidence for recent uplift of the Fitzcarrald Arch (Peru): A response to the Nazca Ridge subduction". Geomorphology. 107 (3–4): 107–117. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.12.003.
  2. ^ a b Amazonia--landscape and species evolution : a look into the past. Hoorn, C. (Carina), Wesselingh, F. P. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 2010. ISBN 9781405181136. OCLC 398503454.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  3. ^ a b Ray, Jyotiranjan S.; Mahoney, John J.; Duncan, Robert A.; Ray, Jyotisankar; Wessel, Paul; Naar, David F. (2012-07-01). "Chronology and Geochemistry of Lavas from the Nazca Ridge and Easter Seamount Chain: an ∼30 Myr Hotspot Record". Journal of Petrology. 53 (7): 1417–1448. doi:10.1093/petrology/egs021. ISSN 0022-3530.
  4. ^ a b Hampel, Andrea; Kukowski, Nina; Bialas, Joerg; Huebscher, Christian; Heinbockel, Raffaela (2004-02-01). "Ridge subduction at an erosive margin: The collision zone of the Nazca Ridge in southern Peru". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 109 (B2). doi:10.1029/2003jb002593. ISSN 2156-2202.
  5. ^ a b Espurt, N.; Baby, P.; Brusset, S.; Roddaz, M.; Hermoza, W.; Regard, V.; Antoine, P.-O.; Salas-Gismondi, R.; Bolaños, R. (2007-06-01). "How does the Nazca Ridge subduction influence the modern Amazonian foreland basin?". Geology. 35 (6). doi:10.1130/g23237a.1. ISSN 0091-7613.
  6. ^ a b van Hunen, Jeroen; Berg, Arie P. van den; Vlaar, Nico J. (2002-07-01). "The impact of the South-American plate motion and the Nazca Ridge subduction on the flat subduction below South Peru". Geophysical Research Letters. 29 (14): 35–1–35-4. doi:10.1029/2001gl014004. ISSN 1944-8007.
  7. ^ a b Kim, YoungHee; Clayton, Robert W. (2015). "Seismic properties of the Nazca oceanic crust in the southern Peruvian subduction system". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 429: 110–121 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  8. ^ a b Hampel, Andrea (2002). "The migration history of the Nazca Ridge along the Peruvian active margin: a re-evaluation". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 203: 665–679 – via Elsevier Science Direct.

Feedback

This is a good topic and an important stub to expand. You have made a good start on finding references I was surprised that the crustal thickness is 18 km because just on the basis of simple isostatic calculations I would guess no more than 12 km (I can explain) - since this came from a paper on the ecological implications in the Amazon it thought it good to check the original source and sure enough this is the number given in Woods, M. T., & Okal, E. A. (1994). The structure of the Nazca ridge and Sala y Gomez seamount chain from the dispersion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysical Journal International, 117(1), 205-222. I am still a bit skeptical

A key question that your bulleted points do not address are the origin of the Nazca Ridge - your Ray et al. (2012) source discusses this in its introduction but there may be better sources. It is a hotspot feature. I found this older reference PILGER JR, R. H., & Handschumacher, D. W. (1981). The fixed-hotspot hypothesis and origin of the Easter—Sala y Gomez—Nazca trace. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 92(7), 437-446. In terms of sections, I think your article could include sections on Physiography and geological setting, Formation (and links to current hotspot), History, Interactions with the margin (erosion, uplift - Fitzcarrald Arch), impacts on Amazonia William Wilcock (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:ErraticGeologist/sandbox&oldid=838419453"