User talk:Bkilli1/sandboxInternalHeatoftheEarth

Hello Bryan, your page looks well structured and all images are legible. I have a few suggestions below:

1. Global internal heat flow section - "Based on this mean..." is oddly placed. Is it supposed to begin a new paragraph or is it supposed to be connected right after the previous sentence?

2. Could you provide heat flow rates for Mars, the Moon, and Io in comparison to the Earth?

3. Give a better explanation for your first figure. For example, "Heat loss is most largely concentrated at mid-ocean ridges, as shown in red."

4. You mention heat-pipe volcanism, but most readers will not understand the term. Could this be illustrated or defined?

Chasebill (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bryan, your page looks good. I think you cover all the bases. Here are my suggestions...

1. Provide a link between your text and your images by mentioning the images in the text when they are relevant.

2. Could you explain the creation/cause of primordal heat in more detail?

3. I'm not sure if the "Historical" section is necessary. If it is supposed to represent the history of theories regarding Earth's heat then I think you should add more of the theories developed between then and now. But, if it is just meant to mention Kelvin's initial tests and theories, then maybe include this information in your introduction and build up to how his theory has been applied and molded to the modern theory.

-Tyler Elorriaga

NOTE ON POSSIBLE ADDITIONS: (1) a good reference for Moho temperature in the first paragraph on temperature in the "Background" section, and then possibly adding temperature values to the schematic figure on Earth's inner heat (2) a bit more detail in the "Primordial Heat" section such as a percentage-breakdown of primordial heat sources. Bkilli1 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1

1) I see that you have a very large reference section, but you do not cite all of your information.
2) I see that you link to a lot of other articles, but I think you could maybe add a couple more, or do it a little differently. Someone using your page for research with very limited understanding of the topic would probably want to link to other pages such as 'conduction' and 'convection' and 'advection'.
3)You have a section on heat flow and plate tectonics towards the end of your article, but I would maybe like to see it sooner, or at least have a better explanation of the divisions of the earth, if I were trying to learn about the subject, before reading the more difficult sections. Zandra619 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

2

Niceee topic. Jealous I didn’t think of it first…Very well written and good graphics. Just minor suggestions:

1. Consider a more descriptive and telling heading than “Background” I know you’re actually giving the background but it might just sound more professional to elaborate a little more.

2. Also the background section might be a little hard for non science majors to digest?? The rest of the page is excellently written for all backgrounds, that’s the only reason I’m pointing out the beginning.

3. If you wanted to, you could do a little more with the Primordial Heat section. Maybe BREIFLY explain the thermodynamics behind heat loss throughout Earth’s early formation? Morabiac (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

3

Nice page, I really enjoy this topic choice. As the person above mentioned, the background section may be slightly hard to grasp without some sort of science knowledge. I also agree with your suggestions for additions (Moho pic and expansion of the primordial heat section). The references are a little messed up, mainly the repetition of identical sources. Overall it is well laid out, I believe you did a really good job with the balancing of simple and useful information on this relatively complex topic. --Andrew

Also see Geothermal gradient for an overlapping topic. You will want to keep your article topic broader so as not to be merged with this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The choice of this topic was to address the question of what are the heat sources in the Earth and their relative importance. Perhaps this article could be titled "Earth's internal heat budget" to be more accurate. There are a couple articles that mention radioactive decay in the earth, such as Geothermal gradient (also this article does not even have a graphic for the geothermal gradient with depth - a major omission, I think) and Earth, but they are broad and brief in their descriptions. I'm afraid that if the present article was more broad it would be redundant. This is why it seemed important to present quantification of Earth's internal heat sources, as much as that could be done, because I did not see this addressed anywhere on wikipedia. The most difficult to quantify is primordial heat, but I do have some references for this and am planning on adding to that section of the article. Bkilli1 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I think the temperature discussion and geothermal gradient graphic in this article is probably a "red herring", taking away from the focal point that is the heat budget. I'll probably remove the temperature stuff, add a link to the geothermal gradient page, and even remove the geothermal gradient figure and add it to the geothermal gradient page. Then, expand the "primordial heat" section. And the title here should be "Earth's internal heat budget", to complement the page Earth's energy budget. Bkilli1 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bryan; informative and nice work

I have some suggestion:

• There is a hard-to -read text in your first and second diagrams you may chop it and refer to it in the caption.

• In the same figure, you may need to add more ticks between 4.5 Ga and present on X axes, and between 0 and 120 on Y axes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadelfar (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)