User talk:Lakhdeep97/new sandbox

Peer Review
Hi Lakhdeep, solid start to the content needed for the LOI article. I am unsure of the reliability of the first resource because it seems to be a website run by the author which may lead to a lack of peer review. I do like the recency of your sources as well as how you've included applications of LOI outside of just earth/environmental science (i.e for concrete). For the future, I would try to replace the first source (or if you can have another peer-reviewed source backing it up) as well as edit the "Theory" paragraph to improve some of the grammar especially since you are describing steps in a procedure, being clear and concise is important. Strong progress on the article -- OntyHam (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer review by Lujhs
The lead is well defined. The explanation of the topic is clear. The structure and flow is readable. Although, the latter half of the Theory section seems to overlap and explain some of the general procedural steps for calculated LOI. Please break down into shorter sections to clarify. There could be more information regarding the detailed procedure (currently empty). Great opportunity to provide more examples of uses and visual aids to further expand on the topic and draw the reader’s interest. The LOI technique is a very visual technique so visual aids would greatly enhance the article. The safety section needs to be expanded. From the lead, this procedure implies a great amount of danger. Safety concerns need to be thoroughly explained to ensure the minimization of harm. The article had a neutral point of view. The article had relevant and appropriate sources. Great work and very interesting topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lujhs (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)