User talk:Marino20/sandbox

Angela's Peer Review
You have a lot of information, however there are few citations included within the text. Be sure to add any and all of the sources you used in writing this article. Include all citations in a references section and remove all colons in every title. Additionally, include links to help the reader understand words or concepts which are especially important or may not know before having read this article. (Amarino789 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC))

Dimitri' Review
Marinos

You have a lot of detail describing the different aspects of Terfenol-D, but I would recommend splitting up your large paragraphs into smaller paragraphs so that all that information isn't just one big chunk. Also, I would use some more hyperlinks for things under the material properties section such as Young's modulus, etc., which the normal reader might not know about. Overall, you have a lot of good information here that describes what Terfenol-D is. (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review
Wow! This is a lot of information, you were ambitious! Looking at this versus the previous "Terfenol-D" article which was just 3-4 sentences, a huge difference!

Here are my suggestions for improvements and clarifications.

History section:
 * The sentence "Dysprosium was added to make it easier to induce magnetostrictive responses because it made the alloy require a lower level of magnetic fields." is more about the properties rather than the history, unless you have a history lesson to mention related to it.
 * It's not obvious to me if you're going to keep sentences from the original article, but if so, I think it's important to mention the location of the research and who was funding it, which is in the current live article on wikipedia. Not sure where you will put this in your paragraph?
 * you say "... than the current technology at the time." Would be easier to say what that time was, such as "... than the current technology in the 1970s." Or something like that.
 * your explanation of the name in three sentences "The first three letters (Ter) come from Terbium and the next two letters (fe) come from iron. The last three letters (nol) come from the abbreviation of the area of discovery, which is the Naval Ordinance Laboratory. Finally, the additive of (-D) originates from an addition of Dysprosium." is clear, but it's also very lengthy compared to the current 1 sentence in the live wikipedia article. Do you think it's necessary?
 * in general, I wanted to know a little more history, but not sure if much is published about that.

Physical Properties section:
 * you write "Terfenol-D has high force..." ... what kind of force? Magnetostrictive force? Be specific. Maybe it gets combine with "large magnetostriction"?
 * you mention the formula for the composition, then have a side sentence about general properties, then come back to a sentence about formula-related properties. I would consider putting all the formula-related sentences back-to-back so that the ideas flow.
 * The sentences "When the ratio between Tb and Dy is changed, the range of operation temperatures changes. The temperature of operations may reach a low of -200 °C and max of 200 °C. The correlation between operation temperature and the ratio is that a higher Tb content will result in an alloy that has magnetostriction at lower temperatures. " are all about the same thought. I would combine and tighten the language about this thought, it's a bit wordy right now.
 * The following sentences are all more about magnetostrsiction in general: "Under little compressive stress, a large magnetostriction will occur as the magnetic field is increased and decreased, resulting in a parabolic shape when magnetostriction vs magnetic field is plotted. However, as the compressive stress applied increases, there is less magnetostriction as the magnetic field increases and decreases. This trend continues as more compressive stress is applied. There is also a relationship between the magnetic flux and compression. At low compressive stress the relationship between the magnetic flux and magnetic field mimics a cubic function. When the compressive stress is increased, the relationship between magnetic flux and magnetic field applied starts to become more linear. For all stresses, the magnetic flux density becomes more negative as the magnetic field applied becomes negative and goes positive when the magnetic field is positive". As such, I don't think they're about Terfenol-D at all, but rather more about the info that should be in the magnetostriction article? Does that make sense?  That's why we can link to elsewhere on wikipedia, so that this article can be tightly focused on things that are just specific to Terfenol-D. As such, I would delete these things, and only talk about how Terfenol-D is better than or different than other typical magnetostrictive materials.
 * The sentence "Overall, Terfenol-D is mostly used for its magnetostrictive properties in which it changes shape when exposed to magnetic fields in a process called magnetization." seems to be about applications, rather than about properties? What is important about this sentence in terms of properties, then maybe mention that in the list of properties that you have.
 * In general, you say things like "high energy density, large magnetostriction, low sound velocity" etc., but very few values. Maybe you want to give a range of values from the literature?

Composites section:
 * You start by saying "Terfenol-D has terrible ductility and low fracture resistance. " but those were never mentioned in the physical properties section. Maybe list those above, and then here you only have to mention about how those things are fixed.
 * In general, it seems more citations might be needed?
 * Should this be a sub-section of the "Production" section?

Applications section:
 * For "Although, its low Young’s Modulus brings some complications due to compression at large depths." I think although could combine with following sentence and remove word "although"
 * In general the language could be tightened some, where a few sentences are removed/reduced from this paragraph

Production section:
 * For "The increase in use of Terfenol-D in various mechanical productions required new production techniques." what does "in various mechanical productions" mean? Clarify please.
 * The first three sentences can be combined/reduced to one intro sentence, and then the next sentence could be the one on the "four methods". You only list two of the methods, however, it would be more satisfying for all four to be listed.
 * you say "power ones" instead of "powder ones"
 * The paragraph change goes into solid and powder crystal, but not clear where this comes from, and then you jump back into MB and then ET-Ryma. I agree with the comment made by one of your peer reviewers that this section starts to become disorganized ... please organize by the four types. And if they fall into two classes (melt vs. powder), then state that and use that also as an organizing principle for the writing.

Overall, I'm happy with the progress, keep it up and make some of these changes and then it'll be great to go live on wikipedia!

UML MECH2960 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review #2
I'm so excited to see its positive reception on wikipedia. Just a few minor tweaks that I think will help make it a great wikipedia article:
 * You have the sentence "At its most pure form, it also has terrible ductility and a low fracture resistance." The word "terrible" isn't a very neutral vantage point word.  I recommend you change it to instead say a "low ductility", which will convey it similarly but not have a negative connotation.  You also say this line later in the article, so remove that "terrible" instance as well.
 * for the "production section", I might change the section title to "Manufacture" instead?
 * where you say "small scaled", please change to "small scale".
 * for methods of manufacture, please try to break the first long paragraph into two or three. You could make one break where it starts saying "The first two methods, ..."

Otherwise I think it's going to be a great basis for future people to start from! UML MECH2960 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)