User talk:XavierLi/sandbox

Xavier's peer review by Lily
Overall, this is a great article! Although it is a bit hard for me, I enjoyed reading it!

What are really good:
 * The structure of this article is nice and clear.
 * The lead of this article attracts readers!
 * The interpretation parts in this article helps readers to grab a bigger picture of those theories. They are so nice!
 * The equation parts are uniform and clear.

What can be improved:
 * Some sentences may lose neutrality. They can be described in other ways.
 * Some terms in the equations are not explained.
 * In some sentences (one can.../we can...), it will be better if the author may use passive voice, just like what we did in process description assay.
 * The explanations between some equations are not clear enough, for example, "second term" and "second equation". The author may number the terms in each equation or clarify which term in which equation.
 * Some words are repeatedly used such as "can" and "is". The author may use "enable" or "is able to" to replace "can", and use "represents" or "stands for" to replace "is".

LittleWen (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Turk's Peer Review
Three things that are great:

1- The first part of the essay is great, I was able to quickly understand what you are talking about (how this theory explains fluid motion in a rotational system).

2- The amount of work done in this article is incredible! I am really impressed by how you broke down the topic into multiple segments.

3- Using the equation and then numbering is an effective approach you leverage to clarify your points, great job!

4- The use of diagrams is excellent to help get your point across.

Three areas of opportunity:

1- The second part of the first paragraph is slightly confusing (Starting from Hoskins et al... forecasters and researchers). I would suggest that you simplify and rewrite this section.

2- There are a few grammatical errors. For example, you mention "such conditions is not a good approximation." I would suggest you change it to "such conditions are not a good approximation."

3- Sometimes unnecessary words are utilized in the text. For example, the text states the following:

One of the simplest [but nevertheless] insightful balancing condition is in the form of quasi-geostrophic equations. This approximation [basically] ....

4- You wrote, "2-dimensional vorticity inversion because" of "the Laplace operator." I would add an "of" after because.

Hope this helps, amazing job :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turks&Caicos (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Turk's Peer Review - Correct Section
Three wonderful things

1-	You explain why the reader should care about the topic very clearly in the first sentence “in fluid mechanics, potential vorticity (PV)…. Frictional processes.”

2-	I liked the use of the diagram.

3-	Great use of the ice skater analogy!

Three Areas of improvement

1-	I would suggest breaking down the first sentence to have it clearer.

2-	It seems you are missing some citations; I was only able to see one direct reference.

3-	Minor errors like saying “air speed” vs. “airspeed.”

Overall great job, amazing work :D Turks&#38;Caicos (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)