User talk:Arblanchette/LAB Draft Sandbox

Hi, Alex, I liked the changes you put on the text. There are some comments I organized in the form of Simon's questionnaire that I hope be useful to you: 1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing? The new organization is better, but if the Introduction won’t be touched, I think that there will be a need to add a section on Chemical Boundary. 2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Yes, he organized the text in three subheadings. 3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? It is well ordered. CONTENT (50%) 4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain. The writer subdivided the definition of LAB on an easier way to summarize it and explain these parts. 5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what is missing? Seems that the writer delivered a good synopsis, but he must decide how to match the introductory part concerning the comment on Chemical Boundary. Perhaps should be important to comment on and make clear the various names of the Gutenberg discontinuity. CITATIONS (10%) 6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting. There is some formatting yet to be done. 7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies. Yes GRAMMAR AND STYLE (10%) 8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems? In Mechanical Boundary Layer, I think there are two mistakes: “contained” seems to be an automatic correction of “constrained” that sounds with a better accordance; let the infinitive form “… to estimate”. In Seismic LAB, because of the If clause would fit better “another definition of the seismic LAB would be the boundary”. Marcelo.silka (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)