Talk:Geodynamics of terrestrial exoplanets

Review by Andrew Webb

Great article. Just about all of it is new to me, and super cool to read about. I particularly liked the "Insolation" section about bipolar planets. Pretty crazy to think about.

I didn't see much wrong with the article, here are a few things I noticed:

The images don't work. I found that when you link an image to your article, you have to include the file extension, like .jpeg. So if you edit your page and find where you inserted the image, just add ".jpeg" to the filename and it should work, if you already uploaded the file under the same name.

Did you think about maybe include heat-pipe planet model into "Potential exoplanet geodynamic regimes"? It's pretty new and still being developed, but it does seem like a plausible missing link between stagnant lid and plate tectonic planets (one single recycled plate).

Coronagraph is linkable (I had to look it up, I've never heard of that before). It actually has a pretty cool section about extrasolar planets, too.

Grammatical/Formatting Edits

In Numerical modeling: "Due to computational limitations, the large amount of variables that control planet geodynamics in real life cannot be accounted for; models therefore ignore certain parameters believed to be less important and emphasize others to try to isolate disproportionately important driving factors." Added a comma.

Add the degree symbol when temperature is given.

One main thing I noticed was the formatting of the titles. Looks like you are using one less = in the titles than you should. "Potential exoplanet geodynamic regimes", "Methods of prdicting exoplanet geodynamic regimes", "Potential determining factors for Earth-like exoplanet geodynamic regimes", and "Implications of exoplanet geodynamic regime" are article titles with one =, instead of 2. The subtitles should have 3 ='s, which will remove the horizontal line under it, and make it easier to recognize a new section, as apposed to a new item in the same section. The only section this will mess up is the "Numerical modeling" section. You could format this one with bullet points for the 4 items in this part (Scaling parameters, Viscoelastic-plastic rheology, etc.) by adding an * before the name.

Awebb6 (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Review by Martial Morrison

General

Jeff! This article is really awesome! I usually focus on grammar when I review the articles, and your grammar is spot-on! In reference to the geology and the info in the article, it's all really interesting and really in-depth. I found it to be really interesting, almost to the point of forgetting that I was reviewing it.

Your reference section contains enough, which I feel most pages struggle with this but yours looks great.

I like how you've got three large sections in the article, and in my opinion they all do their job quite well. Great page; keep up the good work!

Mmorr42 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Review, Austin

Great article. The organization is great and you present a great deal of information at in an organized and accessible manner. I walked away having accumulated a great deal of information. The figure captions can be improved with a brief walk through of what the figure is conveying. Especially in figure 3 as it is a great visual synopsis of your article. Ajamesm28 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Review by Matt O'Leary

• Wording in the sentence "The only planet plate tectonics is known to occur on is our own,[6] although evidence..." Is a little weird, I know what you're saying but It doesn't flow well.
• Makes sure terms that can be linked to wikipedia are bracketed first time they appear.
• Your illustrations depict what you're saying clearly.
• You answered any questions I had pertaining to what stagnant lid planets mean to us in your closing paragraph.
• Not much I can pick out, it's an interesting in depth article that I learned something from. Great job!

- O'Leary 21:29, 16 November 2014‎ User:Molear3

Presence of surface water gobbledegook

The text says

While early modeling studies emphasized the size of a given exoplanet as a critical factor of geodynamic regime, later studies showed that the influence of size may be small to the point of irrelevance compared to the presence of surface water. For plate tectonics to be a sustained, rather than episodic process, the friction coefficient at the upper boundary layer (the mantle-lithosphere interface) must be below a critical value; while some models arrive at a critically low friction coefficient via increased upper boundary layer temperature (and subsequent decreased viscosity), Korenaga (2010) demonstrates high pore fluid content can lower the coefficient of friction below the critical value as well.

But this does not explain in ordinary English whether having lots of surface water makes sustained or episodic tectonic activity more or less likely, or whether sustained vs episodic is more or less likely to be disruptive to potential life. Can a scientist help here? -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)