User talk:Rojasmar/sandbox

REVIEW:

Elaborate above on what specifically makes numerical modeling superior to previous modeling methods. What can be understood from numerical modeling that could not be understood from former methods.

“”"The equations for the geodynamo are" highly complex; "for decades, theorists were confined" to two dimensional "kinematic dynamo models described above, in which the fluid motion is chosen in advance and the effect on the magnetic field calculated." The progression from linear to nonlinear, three dimensional models of dynamo was largely hindered by the search for solutions to magnetohydrodynamic equations, which eliminate the need for many of the assumptions made in kinematic models. “””

^^ I think the above quotes need accompanying citations. It read a little choppy -- I would consider trying to form it into your own words. The quotes throw me off. Do you possibly have a third graphic for the model after dipole reversal? >>>

I think my biggest review would be that this article is super dense. Reading from the standpoint of someone who has little prior knowledge of geophysics, I think it would be helpful if you tried to flesh out some of the bigger topics. I feel like there are some very big underlying topics that you could explain in order to give more contextual information. However, I also know that there's a lot of information already covered in the larger wiki page, so I know you don't want to just repeat things. Overall, I'd try to include more definitions for the really dense scientific language or links to other wiki pages so that the reader can better understand the content.

However, for someone who already understood a good amount about this topic, I think this is a really clear and concise article. It’s relevant, covers important points, and makes sense. Great work!

I think all the critiques were really helpful and valid. I realized that I should have been keeping track of all articles I read while writing about this topic, as there were numerous terms I had to look up. To try to correct this I added links to relevant wiki pages when using obscure terms/phrasing or tried to explain a bit more with common words as opposed to esoteric jargon. The quotations really were choppy; I forgot to mention beforehand that they were preexisting in the current geodynamo page and are more a reference for me so that I wont delete words someone else wrote unnecessarily when moving my portion into the article. I added a third graphic of the pole reversal, which is more helpful to the reader as it now has a beginning, middle, and end. In addition I realized that my organization was rather sloppy, so I tried to fix that some too, though it could still use some work. The main critique was really helpful as I just glanced over what I wrote without seeing how obscure the terminology was after having read about the topics. Assuming that people have already read about the dynamo is a bad assumption -- one that could keep someone from reading the article and prevent someone from learning something new, which is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia wants to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojasmar (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC) For the next review, I'm not looking for anything in paticular, but any suggetions for improvements are welcome. I think I should add more, but there isn't much about numerical modelling that isn't covered elsewhere in the article or wikipedia.Rojasmar (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Review #2:

This article is a much smoother read. I am really impressed by how straightforward it is while still being understandable. A few very specific points I have would be to change "of particular significance, pushing dynamo models to self-consistency." to "because they pushed dynamo models to self-consistency" "exhibit peculiar features like pole reversals. " to "features, such as pole reversals" "Though many self-consistent models now exist, there are significant differences among the various models, both in results and in the way the models were developed." to "Though many self-consistent models now exist, there are significant differences among the them, both in the results they produce and the way they were developed." When you say "given the assumptions that can be made when developing a model" I would elaborate slightly. What do you mean by assumptions? Are they numerical? What type of data is being assumed? Maybe make a sub heading for the section on "observations that can be made." It would give more structure to the article.

I found the ending to be very interesting! I like how you mentioned that the constraints on these models is that we simply do not have enough computer power to improve them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckushel (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The review was, again, very helpful. I made the suggested changes including the text changes and the new section. I also added another section. Overall, the review brought to my attention that the organization could be improved with sections, so I'm glad I had someone besides me look through the article to give me feedback on things I couldn't see myself.Rojasmar (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)