Talk:Silicification

Comment from Graeme

Hi Jasmine Song

Silification looks to be a good topic, and I was surprised it wasn't here before. Congratulations, yours is the first page I have completely read from your class.

Some of your paragraphs are missing citations. eg Sources of silica and Geology. Some other paragraphs are missing a citation on the final sentence.

One sentence I would dispute: " 90% of the Earth's crust is made up of silica" - this may need come clarification or qualification as I thought feldspar was the main crustal constituent not quartz. And thinking about the mantle, from a solid state chemical point of view, olivine is a distinct phase from quartz SiO₂, and does not really contain it. However there is probably some accurate way to say it. Perhaps you could have a formula for olivine weathering to silicic acid and metal ions.

Where you say: "The carbonate that dissolved is therefore pulled out from the system", I would have thought that the system included the rock and the hydrothermal fluid.

Another query (though I am not saying anything is wrong) about: "Mafic magma dominated the seafloor at around 3.0 Ga during the Paleoarchean. Due to rapid silicification, the felsic continental crust began to form." Where did the silica come from?

In "dissolved in thees drainage" what did you mean by thees?

Have people done experiments to reproduce silification in a lab?

Another formatting hint. SiO2 should have 2 as subscript: SiO₂. If you use the visual editor, highlight and press ctrl-, and if using the wikitext editor add ₂ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Yuki

I think your page is generally easy to understand and helps me to learn more about this topic.

In terms of organization, I think your headings and sub-headings are quite effective and they help me to have a brief idea on what your page is about just by reading the contents. I think it's quite nice.

For the introduction, I think it serves its function pretty well. I get the main idea of silicification by just reading your introduction and I believe that it summarizes the content mentioned in the latter sections quite effectively.

For the language, I think you have communicated the ideas in a neat and easy way. I can follow your points easily when reading it. I also saw that you have added some explanations for some technical words, which I think would help people who don't study geology to understand the content of your page. I think there isn't significant grammatical errors but I did spotted a few misuses of singular form and plural form when reading the page, though I think those can be spotted and corrected without a big hassle.

For the illustrations, your visuals have nice annotations and help me to understand the concepts in a really easy manner. I really appreciate it.

For the science, I don't think I'm educated in this area enough to say what is lacking. However, for the section of Sources of silica, when I first read the first paragraph, I thought that you were talking about that there are two types of silica, instead of talking about the two sources of silica. I think you could change some of its wordings and directly pointing out that silica can be from organic materials or inorganic materials. It might help?

For the references, I think you will need to cite some of the diagrams, especially for the map, since I think you generated it from a software or modified it from a research paper. For rest of the three diagrams, I'm not sure if you have used some research papers in helping you to draft those figures, but citing won't hurt.

Wongtszyanyuki (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Keith

Hi, The Wikipage is well-organised, the flow is easy to follow. Concepts are explained very well. I like the clear and easy-to-understand presentation of figures. A minor problem in introduction is the Silicic acid (H4SiO4). Is it Orthosilicic acid (H4O4Si) or silica (SiO2)? I can find a Wikipage on Orthosilicic acid but the link brings us to silicon dioxide. You may also utilise subscript for chemical formulas. Furthermore, for ‘90% of the Earth's crust is made up of silica’, is it a exact figure, or a approximate figure? I would also be interested in knowing why some silicification would produce economically important opal while some would only produce quartz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TseKiChun (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Rachel

Hello Jasmine,

I think you page is very concise and clear. Your diagram showing the mechanism for silification is also easy to understand.

Some improvements can be made: For the introduction, you may break it down into several paragraphs so that it is easier to read. You may consider adding more diagrams to explain other concepts, such as "Permeation". And add more photos showing different examples for silification e.g. solidified wood, silicified carbonates, etc.

Good work!:)

Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelhunggg (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Opal embedded in jasper

• ... that silicification can produce opal (pictured)?Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.06.003 "a high content of silica and readily precipitates silica spheres and deposits of opal"

• Reviewed: Home (Billy Strings album)
• Comment: Student work from University of Hong Kong

Moved to mainspace by Jasminesongy (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 21:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is new enough, long enough, neutral and has no copyvio. The hook is interesting and cited. A QPQ has been done. Picture usage is okay. Late to be reviewed, but still good to go! I appreciate the work and wish university students in Burma could do such works in the near future. Htanaungg (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC) To T:DYK/P3

Comments from Andy

Hi Jasmine,

Your page is clear and well-organised. Your figures are also easy to understand. You may increase the font size of the labels of 'the diagram shows the mechanics of silicification through dissolution of rock materials and precipitation of silica' so that they can be shown clearly to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LklAndy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Candy

Hi Jasmine! The overall organization is good, there are some comments that may help,

1. ‘voids’ maybe a bit difficult for the general public, it would be better to change to other simple words. But if this word is more accurate, then maybe keep using it and explain more its meaning.

2. Maybe better to separate the introductory paragraphs into two for the audience to read easier.

3. This would even be better if a summarizing table can be put after some of the sections, e.g. Biology, this allows the audience to understand better.

4. Good organization, easy to follow!

5. If possible, better add photos for ‘examples of silicification’ to visualize your points

This page is concise and the topic is quite interesting! Keep it up with your work! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyyeung168 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Christy

1. The introduction is very informative and clear. I think it is a little bit too long. You can simplify the part which is about different silicification mechanisms.

2. The organization is good because there are not many sub-section. I can easily understand what is the main idea in each section.

3. It is good that you have both annotated diagrams and real samples at the same time.

4. Your page is easy to understand, clear and interesting!