Talk:Seismic data acquisition

Review of the article, review done by SteffenCoe
Nice article, easy to read and to follow your thoughts and logic :) I definitely learned a few things by reading it!

I have a few suggestions for you: - Survey parameters -- Source type --- Land acquisition --- Marine acquisition -- Receiver type ...and so on
 * There is a few "citation needed" instances. Check whether you can provide some reference/citation here.
 * introduction features very lenghty sentences. Maybe consider to split them into a few more, but shorter and more easy-to-read ones
 * 2nd sentence in 2nd paragraph of introduction: very many terms, maybe consider splitting it up into more sentences/leaving a few out/grouping them? Otherwise the reader can get easily overwhelmed with so many terms that aren't explained right away
 * Maybe make different section structure (split Land/Marine acquisition):
 * 1st paragraph of "Source type - land acquisition": a few too little citations. If you used the citations that you provided, but no additional ones, just reuse them for several times, just to make clear where you got the information from for each claim
 * Avoid the overuse of the word "typically"; I have removed it a few times ;)
 * Signal-to-noise ratio was linked 4 times, but links shall only be created for the first appearance of a term, so I removed the latter 3
 * Section on "Sampling interval and Nyquist criterion" doesn't contain any citations, please add a few!
 * Section on "Record length" only contains one citation, please add a few!

--SteffenCoe (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Review of the article, review done by LNQuaroni
Hi, nice article and definitely well written! I have performed some minor changes, mainly for some sentences whose meaning was a little obscure. My suggestions are: Ciao!
 * More citations (there's a lack of scientific papers cited)
 * Add the pages of the books you have consulted
 * I changed to italics a sentence in the introduction since it is the same as the definition you found on the online dictionary; therefore it should be reported as a literal citation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LNQuaroni (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback
Very interesting article from which I learned a lot! In the introduction I felt a bit overwhelmed at the first read, because the sentence is pretty long. However, I enjoyed reading it and it is well structured. --Floba007 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)