User talk:Benatar.1/Article 7

Article 7 Peer Review
Typo, "discreet"(sic) should be "discrete".

"The formation of initial cracks precluding fatigue failure..." -- I am not sure that "precluding" is the correct word choice here. Dictionary defines Preclude as, "prevent from happening; make impossible." I believe a more appropriate word choice would be "preceding", as in, "The formation of initial cracks preceding fatigue failure...".

"Crack initiation at a pre existing stress concentrator takes less energy than forming a Persistent Slip Band (PSB) and using it to form a crack." The last portion of this sentence is confusing to a reader without re-reading several times. Maybe use "...less energy than forming a crack along a Persistent Slip Band"

Article is unclear on what intrusions and extrusions are in a microstructure.

Would like to see a brief expansion on crack tip and critical size.

Make sure the "Crack Initiation" section is formatted correctly to get its own link and section heading. (i.e. 1.1 Crack Initiation, 1.2 Stage I Crack Growth, 1.3 Stage II Crack Growth, 1.4 Ultimate Failure)

Discuss methods and design decisions favorable to avoiding Fatigue Fracture. And/else, what can be done with a sample showing signs of cyclic fatigue induced cracks, but have not yet propagated to Stage II or Ultimate Failure.

Quality of introduction section – (4/5), it is short and concise, allowing reader a quick overview of what is to be discussed. If the first sentence is going to be "...same basic four step process", then those 4 steps should be stated more explicitly in the following sentences. Stage I, Stage II, and Ultimate Failure seem "hidden" within the paragraph and the reader must assume this is what the author means the 4 step processes are. And the words "Crack Initiation" are not even included in the first paragraph, though it is clear that crack nucleation is an equivalent statement, wording and labeling should be consistent throughout article for clarity and ease of reference.

Structure or outline – (5/5), No issues here. Introduction presenting 4 steps for fatigue fracture followed by 4 sections detailing each. No surprises or unexpected segues/tangents.

English and grammar – (4/5), one typo, listed above. The article is generally easy to read and follow. The paragraphs are broken up into relevant smaller sections and provide added clarity. Author avoids the unfavorable "Wall of text", common to some wiki articles.

Technical content – (4/5), the information is easy to follow and understand for a typical MSE student. A layperson would quickly become confused by certain terminology, "Stress vs strain", "Nucleation", "Crystallographic Planes", etc. It is of course not the author's job to give the reader a crash course in materials science, but hyperlinks to related articles on more complex concepts could be helpful for laypersons.

Reliable sources – Not Applicable. "With surface structure size inversely related to stress concentration factors", maybe link to a source or equation.

75.118.12.39 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Daniel Randlett