User talk:Axelwang1/sandbox

Comments from edit on first draft sandbox

Edit Comments
Intro
 * Maybe move the first sentence to the beginning for clarity
 * Somewhat got lost while reading the into
 * Not sure if the "For example..." is needed
 * Feel like some of the information could be in the body part
 * Doesn't seem to be that many sources (not sure if it needs any though as the information is more of a summary)

Rheological laws and basic variables
 * First sentence is a little long, maybe 2?

Deformation regimes
 * Looks good
 * Able to follow until the second equation and then a little lost... might just be it is a little over my head
 * Transition and Plastic are great and easy to follow!

Strength Profiles
 * Image/additional images def help
 * Are there major differences in the way strength profiles are made or it this the general standard?
 * Have they changed over time?

'''Geodyn. Conseuences:'''
 * Looks good

Overall: The draft looks great!!! My only comment is that sometimes a sentance become full of information and could maybe be separated into two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsobe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to the review
Thank you for the feedback! Here is my response!
 * Sentence structure. This seems to be a global issue regardless of the section. Definitely some of the sentences could be more polished to make them more clear/ concise and so easy to read! I will make an effort to do that!


 * Intro. I personally think the "for example" part, as well as the unspecified content that you feel should be in the body should actually stay in the Intro. My reason is that ,from my own experience reading many Wikipedia articles, the reader should be able to get a general sense of the subject as a whole from just reading the Intro section, without reading anything further down. I feel the content I have in the Intro are all just pointing out everything there is to discuss (at least in this article) about the subject, without mentioning what these these things are, which should be in the actual body part. There are not many sources, as the contents here are general statements. It is actually true that each of the sentence will have many many references behind them, so citing all of them is impractical. Maybe I will remove some of the sources cited for the sentence about experimental results. In stead, I will use something like e.g. sources 1; sources 2.


 * Strength Profiles. I believe what I am describing is the standard way for estimating the profiles. Yes, they have changed over time, since they are strongly dependent on temperature so as the lithosphere cools its strength increases. Will make this clear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelwang1 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Second Review
Hello again!

In a google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XDvxPm_8T7hduyufb3wgNYtnwpVRhRqKzh2lhEyNWPo/edit?usp=sharing), I created a list of comments for some simple fixes I saw (the format gets messed up when pasted here). For the most part, the only errors seem to be long sentences that are a little hard to follow and extra space after dashes. The only spot where the structure was slightly confusing is when the slope of the red line is mentioned in the seismogenic thickness section. I don't exactly make the connection to the Jelly model and think an extra sentence would be helpful, especially since the description of the Jelly model comes afterward. Also, when you say "Plotting conventions is the same as the flexure figures" for one of the captions of the images, are you referring to the two images above or one of the other images. Other than that, from my point of view the article looks great and ready to be moved to the actual page.