Talk:Paleostress inversion
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall Semester 2016. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hong Kong/Regional Geology (Fall Semester 2016)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Hey, here are three suggestions:
- consistency with citation, use the same citation method throughout the article. Some facts are stated without any citation e.g The theoretical basis of grain size piezometry was first laid by Robert J. Twiss in late 1970s.
- Only link a word once, if the same word reappears in the article there is no need to link it
- Continue the article with the abbreviation once its stated eg DRX, it is redundant to add both the word and abbreviation multiple times, please check.
Perry
Hi, jenny,
- It's good to see a lot of hyperlinks in your page! But I found that there are still some jargons without hyperlink, and I think you can try to find them out and link them to external sites.
- I found that most of the equations have annotations below except for the 'Shimizu model'. Perhaps you can add some annotations explaining what the symbols in the equation stand for to make your page more consistent?
- Your gif. images look really nice! But I think it will be easier for readers to understand if you could add some labels onto the diagrams.
Roberta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertalau1228 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer review from Ron
[edit]Hi Jenny,
- There is nothing in the title Simultaneous operation of dislocation and diffusion creeps?
- Labels can be added to the GIF image you created.
- You indicated the date where the Static energy-balance model was first laid, how about the date of other models?
Cheers, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlau817 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer review from Lydia
[edit]Hi Jenny,
1 You may add more labels to the images that you use. 2. Numerical models are diffficult to understand, you need to explain more on how to derive them. 3. The diagrams and GIFs are good. When you modify some models from preexisting models, you may add referencing to them.
Lydia yip (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Review from Jupiter :D
[edit]Here are some suggestion to your wiki page:
1. You have defined some parameters in the equations. However, there are some missing, especially at the end of the page. It will be better to define all of them, even though some are well known.
2. For the conjugate fault, it is good to show the conceptual geometric diagram. I think it maybe good to also a real life picture? I know there are rocks breaks in this orientation, but I'm not sure if there is a right-free picture of it.
3. And a very simple question. Why you bold the word "Quartz" at the last part?
4. And a more. Why you put the small words "4) Principle of P and T dihedra: incompatibility zones (white) are found by overlapping P (black) and T (grey) regions derived from fault sets" under the diagram instead of putting that in the caption part? People may not know you are talking about the diagram.
( Jupmira104 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Review form Skylar
[edit]Interesting topic and clear explanation, easy to follow. Here are some suggestions for the article.
1. In defining the assumptions used by models, I think numbering each of them or listing them may be clearer than using lengthy sentences. It would be even better if there are images illustrating the assumptions.
2. A brief introduction at the beginning of the section Fault slip analysis may be helping in giving readers an overview of the two methods. The second method is rather long and occupies most of the section. Is it possible to split the section into two for each method?
3. Illustration should be labelled well or described in the passage. For example, readers do not know whats are sigma1 and sigma2 and how to read rose diagram.
4. Some parts of the article are not referenced. For example, deficiency of the model. In-line citation can help readers studying the topic in the future.
5. May considering reorganising headings and sub-headings. They are a bit messy and hard to follow. For example, are Derby–Ashby model and Shimizu model under the category of Nucleation-and-growth models? It looks a bit unclear.