This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Louisiana State University/Geology 4002: Evolution of Terrestrial Planets (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

A fact from Zamama (volcano) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Zamama volcanic center on Io had an average output power of 139.6 gigawatts between 1996 and 1999?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zamama (volcano).

Wikipedia

To interested editors

The (Evolution of ionian volcanoes) subheading, at the page bottom- needs extensive edit and addition. Some of the information there are incomplete, yet the cited reference is strong and full of detailed information. Help improving this page by researching and developing this section using the given references in the page. Also, the subheading "Future Work" Needs to have better,focused, newer and Zamama-related material. Thank you for your support AmmarBanafea (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Adam

Ammar the skeleton of it looks good, but I'd assume you have some filling in to do! The sections look like you should have a pretty full page once you get everything in there. There are some grammatical mistakes that you should get changed, but if you need help with this, I can help you since I know english isn't your first language. Our topics are very similar. I didn't look at your references, but David Williams (Arizona State University) has done loads of studies on Io. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwalsh93 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 March 2015‎

Thank you adam

I have a problem when ever I want to fill in a subheading, I always ask my self, would a high-school student benefit from this, and the answer is almost always NO! therefor, I hesitate and keep it blank. what do you think I should do? Should I keep it real and put what scientists think its important regarding this highly specific topic or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmmarBanafea (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 March 2015‎

Andrew

Like Adam said, the structure and images look fine, but the majority of the page needs to be filled in. I'm guessing the citations in the "References" section are just placeholders, since there is no point in putting new references there. Also, whenever you type the area's of a region or structure (like " ~37,000 Km2"), make the 2 a superscript, like this "~37,000 km². Adamwalsh93 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Adam Walsh[reply]

Thank you Andrew

Thank you andrew, I have a problem whenever I want to fill in a subheading, I always ask myself, would a high-school student benefit from this, and the answer is almost always NO! therefor, I hesitate and keep it blank. what do you think I should do? Should I keep it real and put what scientists think its important regarding this highly specific topic or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmmarBanafea (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Awebb6 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Hunter

Ammar, other than filling in the skeleton it looks like you are off to a good start. I completely understand what you mean about not wanting to put in information that someone other than a scientist would understand. I would suggest that you break down the subject (Zamama), into a very simple paragraph that states why it is interesting/relevant. These points could be the subheadings you are looking for. After that you can always add subheadings that you feel are important and need to be addressed. Start small and then go big!

-Hunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvanwy1 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hunter

I appreciate your feedback. one week from now and my article will be complete. we miss you in class Hunter! AmmarBanafea (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby

Hi Ammar. One of the biggest problems I see here is a lot of grammatical errors. We can hash them out here if you would like. However, I imagine it would be easier for all involved to do it in person. Sjoh197 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Actually, I would love to have you edit my work. straighten it up for me Shelby. This work was revised by an english instructor at the CxC. I don't know what else I can do. I appreciate your help AmmarBanafea (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmmarBanafea (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Rob

It looks goo Ammar. I would either delete the "comparisons and evolution" section or make it a main section with the sub sections below it, as there is nother under it. Also, I suggest you move your main image to the top, under the coordinates, I think this will look better. It looks great man love the images! Robnarmour1018 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rob

Thank you for your feedback. The reason I have " comparisons and evolution" section, and the reason I have it at the bottom is because I want to separate observations from interpretations. If I move it up, it will look better but the flow of ideas will be missed up: observations, then interpretations, the observations again. I don't want to confuse the reader, you know. honestly, you have a good point there, it will look better if I move this section up. AmmarBanafea (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Citra

Hi Ammar! Overall, your page looks good. The texts and the pictures look well-balanced together. The pictures illustrate your content very well also. To make your page better, you might want to consider taking out the conversions in the parentheses and just be consistent in putting all the values in SI units. Also, to make it more clear, you might want to elaborate a little more on the "two flow field morphologies". Lastly, I would probably consider taking out the 'Further Reading' section and incorporate the information from those sources into the wikipage. Planetarysprotege (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarysprotege: Now that this page has been moved into the main article space, other editors, such as myself, will begin editing it to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. I'm unsure why you suggest removing the conversions...this is standard practice here. All measures are currently and consistently in SI, followed by Imperial in parentheses. I would agree with integrating the Further Reading material into the article where possible, but it certainly isn't unusual for articles to have such a section in order to include what may be perceived as important but currently unused material. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Planetarysprotege: :Huntster: Thanks for your input and feedback Y'all. The most critical part about this article is to find relative sources. This is why Further Reading section is quite important here.