User talk:Plaidscientist
A bowl of strawberries for you!
[edit]
|
Welcome to Wikipedia! Betaprice (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Plaidscientist, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Peer review
[edit]Hi Plaidscientist! Just wanted to let you know that I will be peer reviewing your article.
I am also peer reviewing the other two members of our little group (as I missed one earlier this semester), and will be leaving similar message on their user talk pages so we don't wind up with someone who doesn't get two peer reviews. Maa0519 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Summary: This article is about the physics phenomena know as flux tubes, which are a region of space with constant magnetic flux, usually cylindrical in nature, that contain a magnetic field vector that is perpendicular to the normal vector of the surface considered. The author briefly outlines the history of flux tubes, before moving into a summary of their properties and equations that govern them. Lastly, it gives a few examples of flux tubes in nature.
Major Points: The structure of the article felt a lot like some of the other physics Wikipedia articles I have read, which is great. The images the author chose really help the reader visualize what flux tubes are, though the first one is missing a caption. The lead paragraphs do a good job of highlighting and briefly stating the material that is in the rest of the article. It is also an improvement over the original article, as the author removed a sentence on superconductors when they weren’t mentioned in the article, and changed the sentence structure of one part, so that it was more in line with the terminology used in the field. I did not detect any bias in the article, and it read neutrally and like an encyclopedia, in my opinion. That said, I have seen infoboxes used in other physics articles and the author may want to consider adding one to this article (look at “simple harmonic motion” for an extremely detailed one).
The “Basic properties…” section was good overall, and closely modeled the style of other physics articles. However, in the “flux tube compression and extension” subsection, I was left wondering what the lambda term meant, as it wasn’t explicitly defined like the other terms. If possible (if they exist), I would recommend that the author also add more hyperlinks to some of the terms used so their meaning is clearer to the reader. For instance, the terms “topology”, “plasma” and “Ohm’s law” in the “flux conservation” section, and “Maxwell’s equations” in “flux tube strength”, etc.
Minor Points: Overall, the author did a good job here. I didn’t pick up on any grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors. As a note, I noticed that the “Planetary” subsection of “Examples of flux tubes” section is empty, which will likely change as time goes ahead. All of the sources the author used appear to be reputable scientific sources, though some of them are a bit dated. This isn’t a problem if that’s all there was, but Wikipedians tend to prefer more recent sources.
Maa0519 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
[edit]Hi, Just a heads up that I'm going to be reviewing your article soon. Betaprice (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Summary The user chose to improve the article "flux tubes." Flux tubes are cylindrical regions of space with a magnetic field that is perpendicular to the sides of the cylinder at all points. The original article has only two sections--one of which is overly technical, the other one having nothing but equations. The user essentially made their own article which much more thoroughly explains flux tubes.
Major Points In terms of understandability, for the most part I feel as though most people would be able to understand the article. In the "Basic Properties of Flux Tubes" section, though, the user might want to consider explaining some of the concepts a bit more. Also, the captions of the images should probably be a little bit simpler. Another thing the user might want to consider doing is expanding a bit more on some of the sections. I assume the user is not yet complete, as the "planetary" subsection does not yet have any text, but there is still more that can probably be expanded upon. The section "History" could probably be turned into a "history and context" section, where the user explains what magnetic flux is (a very short history of electrodynamics). This would be an easy way to improve the article. All of the citations seems to be in order, especially considering most of the citations from the original article did not seem all that good.
Minor Points I'm not entirely sure why the user has decided to bold some of the text in the introduction. The user might also want to consider putting a caption on the image of the flux tube. Block quotes are also generally reserved for quotes longer than 3 or 4 lines, so the user might want to consider moving the quote in "History" to put it with the rest of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaprice (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
[edit]Hi, I really like what you did! Good job! And I am going to do peer review for you.
Summary: The author decided to improve the existing article “flux tubes” which only has introduction section and some equations. Flux tubes are cylindrical(tube-like) regions of space containing a magnetic field that is perpendicular to the normal vector of the surface. The author briefly introduce the basic definition and history of it first. Then author carefully introduce associated properties with equations. And author also introduced some examples to make audience understand easily.
Major points: I really like the structure of the article since it starts with basic knowledge and makes audience understand more and more. Meanwhile, author explains equations and examples carefully as other good physical articles in Wikipedia does. I like the image that author added in the leading part since it makes audiences easily understand the idea of “flux tubes”. Using one image to help explain the definition is very useful in introducing one physical term to public. However, adding some notes and under images could be better, not only the name. For the history part, I think audiences might want to know more about the history, not just the first time the concept was defined. Author could add more contents of the development of the “flux tubes” after 1861. For the basic properties, author uses many physical terms and also adds some links to them. But author didn’t add links to same terms in different sections.
Minor points: There are not obvious grammar and spelling problems as I see. The only question I have is that author bolds many sentences in the leading paragraph. It makes audience read uncomfortably. --Grilledrex (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)