User talk:Aannie199/sandbox-geophysical imaging

Lead
The draft’s lead section is similar to the one already written but does a much better job of giving context for geophysical imaging and its impact. It might make more sense to move the sentence beginning, “Geophysical imaging is a noninvasive imagine technique…” to be the second sentence, though. This sentence is a nice overview of what the process is, so it should come sooner in the introduction. Discussing the technological advancements is not as important as introducing the foundations of imaging techniques. This sentence also indicates there might be a section focusing on the technology underlying geophysical imaging, which there currently is not. This could be an interesting addition to the current sections.

Structure
The current structure of the draft has an excellent foundation. It is organized into types and applications, which is a logical division of information. For the sections “Imaging the Lithosphere” and “Seismic Methods” the depth of information is great, but the introduction implies the existence of other types and applications for geophysical imaging. With the given structure, multiple applications and types will be easy to logically include in the draft, potentially in the form of a table if little information is available. Some suggestions for sections include a basic overview of how the technology works at a more elementary level, or potentially a section on advancements in imaging technology.

Balance of Coverage
As mentioned, the draft currently focuses on one type of imaging and one application. Reading this gives the sense that these two topics are fundamentally more important than others, which is contradicted by the list of related imaging techniques at the end of the draft. An overview of the applications of geophysical imaging in ecology and business would be very helpful in portraying a more holistic picture of the technology. However, if an ecology section is introduced, make sure it has a neutral tone, as undoubtedly there are some tensions regarding geophysical imaging and oil production.

Neutrality
Overall, the draft does an excellent job of maintaining a neutral and professional tone. For the most part, facts and information are introduced scientifically with little expression of writer bias and opinions. However, there is one spot that could be considered questionable without support. In the first paragraph, the draft mentions that the technology is progressing rapidly, but does little to support this claim. Are advancements being made monthly, annually, etc.? Fortunately, with a bit of support this claim can be easily substantiated and is very relevant to the topic.

Links
The two references work and are relevant to the article. Both are from reliable academic journals, which indicates the information presented is factual and correct. Citations are appropriately placed in the draft, with all claims and evidence supported. The draft could benefit from more resources and further readings, though. This would help with the balance of the article, so as to not rely so heavily on only two sources.

Ejackson63EAS (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)