Talk:"Old Faithful"A Phenomenal Hot Spot

From GeoClasses

Contents 1 Ludlow Peer Review 1.1 Editorial content 1.2 Scientific content 1.3 Summary statements 2 Response Review 3 Thais peer review 3.1 Editorial content 3.2 Scientific content 3.3 Summary statements 4 Response Review 5 C. Jones Review 5.1 Editorial content 5.2 Scientific content 5.3 Summary statements 6 Response Review

Ludlow Peer Review

Editorial content

1. Are all the images correctly referenced and come from public domain sources? yes
2. Are the spelling and grammar correct? No, see comments.
3. Does the text make sense? For the most part. See comments.
4. Are there at least 4 references? Yes.

Scientific content

1. Does the abstract accurately describe the content of the project? No, see comments below.
2. Is the information provided accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes.
3. Is there anything missing given the topic of this project? Yes. See comments.
4. What outstanding questions do you have about the project? Water seeping into the ground around volcanic activity is not rare, but geysers are. Why? The steps you outlined seem plausible in many places.

Summary statements

1. Describe at least one thing the project got right. Explain why you think this. I liked the place on words with the phenomenal hot spot. Describing the geyser in terms of tectonics was very informative.
2. Describe at least one thing the project got wrong or that you think the authors could have done better. Explain your reasoning. Too short - needs to be at least 1200 words. The abstract was more of an introduction instead of a summary of the report or summary of what was to be explained. Some of the wording seem awkward. For example: The first sentence has the phrase "is believed to be known for." This is passive voice. Is it known for it or do people think that its known for it? If people think that its known for one thing then how is it known for something else? Second paragraph: "Geysers are considered to be hot springs which projects" should be project. Also, why are they considered hot springs? Whats the difference between a hot spring and a geyser? Next paragraph: third of fourth sentence down, "The function of a geyser works similar..." Maybe it should be "A geyser functions similar to this:" Next, you never really explain what a plume is. In the first sentence under "Tectonic history" you say "Hotspots are stationary places located in the earth's mantle." This is fairly non-descriptive and doesn't explain what it is. A stationary place doing what? Providing constant magma to one particular "hot spot"? Just seemed awkward to me. Same paragraph -You say that a tectonic plate "moves westward upon the earth's crust." Isn't a tectonic plate the crust itself? Also, your references are not provided in any format, i.e. APA, or MLA.
3. Summarize your opinion of the project. I thought the project was overall pretty interesting. Hope the comments are helpful.

Response Review

I would like to thank you for your peer review of my project. I had technical difficulties and was only able to submit a rough draft of my project, which I believe Dr. Urbano said was acceptable. Your comments were somewhat severe, but I accepted them as constructive criticism and they helped a lot.

Thais peer review

Editorial content

1. Are all the images correctly referenced and come from public domain sources? yes, referenced. Two are from lecture blackboard images.
   • How to tell if an image is in the public domain
2. Are the spelling and grammar correct? Fairly good. (I would eliminate the "since" that leads a sentence regarding temperature in the geyser's channel and omit the parenthesized "(heavier).' In the 'techtonic history' section that I expected would contain more scientific detail, you may want to edit "some believe" and "others believe" that are more subjective and opinion based statements.
3. Does the text make sense? yes
4. Are there at least 4 references? yes

Scientific content

1. Does the abstract accurately describe the content of the project? Abstract not labeled as 'abstract' but more relative to a specific geyser. There is a general, summary for a beginning. Is this more about 'Old Faithful' specifically or geysers in general? You may want to begin with the Summary, then move to the general introduction, and then move forward with 'Old Faithful before discussing 'techtonics' and then conclusion.
2. Is the information provided accurate to the best of your knowledge? yes
3. Is there anything missing given the topic of this project? Good general outline, but seems brief and somewhat simplistic rather than scientific.
4. What outstanding questions do you have about the project? The use of class lecture diagrams is good, but were there others available online that could have improved the presentation?

Summary statements

1. Describe at least one thing the project got right. Explain why you think this. Good summary and introductions for overview.
2. Describe at least one thing the project got wrong or that you think the authors could have done better. Explain your reasoning. Overall it seemed too simplistic and vague/ambiguous in some areas rather than fact based to be a scientific report. In one place is states Observe the diagram below." The layout of the image-diagram is not ajacent to the referencing text, but further down in the report.
3. Summarize your opinion of the project. Could be expanded, factually presented and more scientific. References could be expanded to include titles, headers, descriptors, dates, etc from overview at the bottom of report layout..mt

Response Review

I would like to thank you for your peer review of my project. I had technical difficulties and was only able to submit a rough draft of my project, which I believe Dr. Urbano said was acceptable. Your comments were somewhat severe, but I accepted them as constructive criticism and they helped a lot. The pictures to my knowledge were obtained for this project were copied from public domain use websites. Thank you for the website link to know how to tell if an image is in the public domain. It was very helpful. I also thought a personal diagram would be nice. I hope Dr. Urbano thinks so.

C. Jones Review

Editorial content

1. Are all the images correctly referenced and come from public domain sources? Yes, for the most part. Im not so sure about the Snake Plane images.
2. Are the spelling and grammar correct? I believe you spelled "Geyerserland" wrong. Geyserland?(I'm not sure)
3. Does the text make sense? Yes. Well done
4. Are there at least 4 references? yes

Scientific content

1. Does the abstract accurately describe the content of the project? Yes
2. Is the information provided accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes
3. Is there anything missing given the topic of this project? Not really. I just wish you would go into more detail concerning the images.
4. What outstanding questions do you have about the project? Out of curiosity(really doesn't have to be added into the project), at what rate do the plate tectonics move and which way are the plates moving?

Summary statements

1. Describe at least one thing the project got right. Explain why you think this. The images and corresponding text were very well illistrated. The text was plain to where anyone could understand and the pictures were great illistrations of the topic.
2. Describe at least one thing the project got wrong or that you think the authors could have done better. Explain your reasoning. Some diagrams needed more explaination just so readers can really understand the significance of the image.
3. Summarize your opinion of the project. Overall, Omie, your project was wonderful. I left knowing a little bit more about hotspots than I knew before.

Response Review

I would like to thank you for your peer review of my project. I had technical difficulties and was only able to submit a rough draft of my project, which I believe Dr. Urbano said was acceptable. Your comments were very helpful and I'm thankful you were able to learn a little more about hotspots.