Talk:Geological structure measurement by LiDAR

Hi Kenneth,

Here is my feedback as a non-specialist reader. The article is well-written and well-organized (but see below). You have obviously done a lot of work. I like the tables and the GIFs.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. In Section 1.1 I'm not sure what stereonet means. Perhaps you need to explain or add a blue link. In Section 1.2 I don't know what point cloud means. 2. In Section 1.4 it seems like there are 2 procedures rather than 3. 3. I think you should number the visuals (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 2) and refer to them in the text so the reader knows when to look at them. Not sure if this is a requirement for Wikipedia. 4. Should there be some kind of overview for Parameters of Lidar data sets? This section to the non-specialist reader seems like a list of unrelated items.

Thanks,

Textbookzoom3

Hi Kenneth, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textbookzoom3 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your page is so informative and detail especially you compare LIDAR and other methods by tables. The workflow is good and also introduced the page so clear with gif. Readers are so easy to follow. There are a few suggestions for you.

You can mention the advantage of the potential application. You can also explain the visuals more. Try to make to use of Subheading 1 and subheading 2 function. Sometimes, it is hard to follow some paragraphs such as "Challenges for LiDAR technology, the data filtering and etc.

Excellent Work!!

Marco

Hi Kenneth,

Your page is very good at being clear, well done! Some minor points which you may consider are as follows:

You could put the table of contents (TOC) after the introduction, as in most wiki pages. This would make the initial view of the page more accessible to your readers.

In your TOC some sections are bold and others are not. I'm not sure why this is. Is it relevant to your page?

In your introduction, you state this method enables "characterisation of rock bodies" - how specifically can rock joints be characterised through the LiDAR technique? Is there a criteria of classification in light of this technique perhaps which you might introduce? Or perhaps a date of when this LiDAR method became popular?

"Rock joint orientations measurement" - I think this makes more sense as "rock joint orientation measurement", as singular not plural.

It is really good that you provide the importance of this topic in your introduction. However, you don't state what LiDAR is in the introduction, it is in a later section. Perhaps you could introduce this in the introduction too as it is a big part of your page and listed in the title but not mentioned in the introduction?

Very good use of a table to summarise the methods!

A page already exists on DTM's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_elevation_model), perhaps you could link this page too, and it might help cut your page down if there is overlap in content. Maybe you can contribute what you have written about DTM's to this page too!

Good use of a GIF to visualise how the technique works!

You have an image of an unmanned aerial vehicle on your page, is it possible to integrate this into your table to keep everything together? Could you have another column for a photo of each LiDAR scanning method?

Should challenges for LiDAR technology be in a separate section to rock joint orientation analysis?

A good number of references - you've done your reading!!

Well done again!

Hayley

Hrhunt (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

--

Hi Kenneth

For communications:

1. You may add more links on some terms like “dips and dip direction”, “Stereonet”, “partition”

2. You explained the theories of three different principles; but I wonder their implications, like in which occasions, point, triangular (typo for the title) or grid is(are) used

For visuals:

1. You may use “Heading” font sizes to indicate different sections

2. You may add descriptions on the figures and diagrams and O-chart you added which can help explain

The gif is perfect for expelling how the sensing works. As talked, I previously thought that it could measure rock joints within rocks. Haha

Nice work, my friend!

Oscar - 20201012

Hi Kenneth,

You did a nice job and the content is interesting to follow.

Below are my suggestions. 1. There is a disconnect between subsections 1.1 and 1.2. The first sentence in 1.2 should connect us with 1.1. Overall, I would have prefer that the Introduction (i.e., section 1.0 and 1.1) stands alone and move 1.2 and others to a new section (e.g., section 2). Having just one major section is not technically ideal for this article.

2. The majority of the focus of this article seems to focus on the LiDAR methodology in a way that could influence a change in the topic, e.g., renaming it to "LiDAR application in rock joints (or discontinuity?) mapping". Maybe not.

3. Try to re-arrange the figures in a more compact way to make the page more beautiful.

Overall, the work is good, Well done!

Cheers, Blessing — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessingAdeoti (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC) -

Hi Kenneth,

Good use of diagrams and gif!

Below are some suggestions:

There is a minor typing mistake in the section techniques and technologies - ‘laser pulses’. While in the section above, changing the phrase to ‘number of *joint* sets’ may make the sentence clearer.

You may adjust the font size of different order headings, so that readers can distinguish which ones are the major headings. For example, ‘Challenges for LiDAR technology’ and the subtitles below.

Abbreviations like ‘UAV’ could be put in brackets of the full term when it first appears.

In the text, you may ask readers to refer to a specific figure.

Nice work!

Nathalie

Nykwong (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

-

Hi Kenneth,

The first figure does give us a general idea of what this page is about:)

Below are some minor points you may consider:

In section 2, can you add links to terms like Inertial Measuring Unit, discrete return, and full-waveform return? Or explain it briefly in the text. When you first mention land-based and airborne systems in section 2.1, you may ask readers to refer to the images below.

In the table comparing different data filtering methods, can you put a percentage also for accuracy of TIN? Since we don’t know if satisfactory means better or worse than the other 3 methods.

Good work overall!

Nathalie

Nykwong (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

-

Hi Kenneth! Here are some comments for you.

1. You include a formula to explain the principle of Lidar and this is more efficient than using text. But I think you may provide the units of each variables to clarify.

2. You may add some 'suitable areas' or 'situations' for those 4 different methods.

3. You may also link 'persistence' in section 1.2.

Nice Work!

Oscar

-

Hi Kenneth, Hayley here!

I really like your first figure - it shows the technique in practice and information which can be drawn from this. I also like how you have incorporated images of the vehicles used into the page by use of a table - it summarises information very well. Good job for linking the existing DEM page too! I also like you introduce what you will talk about in one of your longer tables to set expectations.

I think your reference list should take up the width of the page - is there a way to move the video up slightly? I think your first sentence needs to change considering the change of your title. Your useful links box is so small I missed it! Make sure it is big enough to draw attention!

Well done!

Hayley Hrhunt (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kenneth,

Great Work! YOu make use of the video and pics to show the idea of Lidar and the application. Here are some suggestions for you.

1. You can explain more on different data acquisition methods. 2. YOur pics can be larger such as the gif represents the principle of LIDAR. 3. For the comparison of different data filtering methods, can explain what is the satisfactory level of accuracy. Marco

Reflection notes
Reflection notes:

The most important reflection on my own 1. Able to read scientific papers faster through guiding myself with questions, such as Problem, Prediction, Hypothesis, Results and Evaluations. 2. SHOULD HAVE A WELL DEFINED SCOPE BEFORE START WRITING ANYTHING 3. NEED to think of a proper way of science communication, such as using simple sentences with active voice, thinking in readers' perspective 4. MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT BEFORE WRITING THE CONCEPTS DOWN, if I cannot explain to myself, I am not understanding all concepts

These are the most important things to be considered whenever writing any science related articles.

Kenneth 2020_12_17