User:BornAYasMain/Geophysics/Houdarar13 Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

BornAYasMain/Geophysics

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:BornAYasMain/Geophysics

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Geophysics

Evaluate the drafted changes

Clarity

You choice of wording is very clear for paragraph 1 and 2. I would even argue it is the best factor you improved from the original piece.

I think paragraph 3 is unclear. This is common theme you will see in the future sections of this peer review.

Ask your self these questions for paragraph 3....

1) What is a geophysical method

2) What different methods use different platforms. Example drone--->lidar seismic oil -----> downhole helicopter----> Mag

3) Are there more then just seismic and electromagnetic ? in the first sentence you only say there are two but then you say there are 6+

Sources

Very good sources: NOAA,US DEP of commerce,NASA, stanford encyclopedia,Isntitite of Physcis (IOP), TExas Geosciences(jackson school of geoscience). 6/6.

All your sources are very credible whether they are public government institution or private academic institutions.

However:

1) For example your third paragraph, only one sentence has link to reference. I am sure the information is correct but please link more your claims to sources. (why did you get rid of lidar?... its important in vegetation,agriculture,urban planning....)

Paragraph 1 and 2 have good link coverage

2) so you may increase your technical knowledge especially in the way you presented paragraph 3. I would recommend looking at society of exploration geophysics. https://library.seg.org/journal/gpysa7

Balanced Coverage

The three sub topics you chose widely vary so thats great. I would cover more of the different geophysical methods and they're technicalities and how they're respective models are created an interpreted. However, this does require a-lot of technical knowledge I can understand if you were not comfortable with editing those sections.

Perhaps discuss on why Newton publishment of Pricnpia was critical in the field of geophysics rather then just theoretical physics.

Structure

Paragraph structure in 1 and 2 was very heavily improved. They flow much better and sounds and chronologically make sense. Again the structure of paragraph three has the right intentions, but the technicalities are wrong. They mislead the reader to thinking there are only two but then you hit them with 6 different methods

Paragraph three structure

1) Goal of geophysics

2) types

3) machines/transportation used to facilitate the different types

4) corrections, reasoning and examples

5) perhaps even add a project where geophysics was ground breaking

Neutrality

There is no bias either praising or shaming the use of geophysics which is good. Perhaps mention that many of the time geophysics if done with enough due diligence is accurate. However interpretation, is very important. Overlapping with lithological data is crucial to not confirm a predisposed bias. For example conducting body isn't necessarily an ore, it can be saline fluids....

Predisposed bias and a geologists ego can lead to project failures.

Suggestions for improvement

1) The earths shape constantly changes. Great! Maybe add a rate of how the geod fluctuates, how has it changed over the years? Give a number.

2) The technical understanding of geophysics here is flawed

Exploration geophysics is a branch of applied geophysics that involves the development and utilization of different seismic or electromagnetic methods which the aim of investigating different energy, mineral and water resources. This is done through the uses of various remote sensing platforms such as; satellites, aircraft, boats, drones, borehole sensing equipment and seismic receivers. These equipment are often used in conjunction with different geophysical methods such as magnetic, gravimetry, electromagnetic, radiometric, barometry methods in order to gather the data.

Why?

a) you dont only use electromagnetic or seismic

b) you use magnetic,gravimetry,eltcromagnetic,radiometric,barometric methods facilitated by the transportation methods you said above. I think you understand the gist of it but phrased it wrong.

c) I would say in this structure : exploration geophysics is a branch of applied geophysics that involves various remote sensing technologies. Expression geophysics tackles the problem of limited surface expression of water, energy,oil, and mineral resources. These remote, sensing technologies are not limited to but include magnetic, gravimetric, electromagnetic, radiometric and barometric methods. These methods often facilitated by satellites, aircraft, boats, drones, or borehole sensing equipment.

3) If you are confident that the earth is ellipsoid, take away words such as "generally" and "entirely" it either is or not a sphere or ellipsoid. Gives you more merit in the scientific word. It is good to put these words in unproved theories, but accepted theories such as these should not have those doubt precursor words

4) good spelling i dont see much of errors in spelling. Fix 'HIs' to "His" in paragraph 2, last sentence.

5) Geophysical adjustments are called corrections.

6) Corrections are also done due to density correction (look up Bouger correction) , elevation correction (Look up Free air correction), equipment wear and tear correction (linear wear of springs) , moon orbit correction (that was originally said, why did you get rid of it?)

Strength and Weakness:

I believe Sharif improved flow, gramatical error and overall structure to paragraphs one and two. Paragraph's one and two were also improved the technical reasons on why the earth shape is not elliptical and newtons fundamental discoveries in physics respectively. The citations added in paragraph notably mentioning loadstones tie in very well with newtons description of a magnet and electromagnetic surveys. Moreover, Paragraph three needs improvement in structure but also in technical understanding of what geophysics are. The organization of geophysical methods, instruments used to facilitate them and they're respective corrections must be well identifiable.

Perhaps a little more time spent on reading up on the fundamentals of exploration geophysics would be helpful.