Talk:Analogue modelling (geology)

Reflection

Well, that's completely different from what I imagined before I did this page. I think this more likely be a technological page rather than a geological knowledge page. However, I like the GIFs I made.

The citations are mainly from some certain review papers (such as I cited 21 times of the first paper, that means I mainly worked on this paper). Rest of the references are single citations (maybe they are just showing as examples in the explanation, even not use an idea from the paper.) I haven't written much in the application part, and most of them seem to be explaining the model setting. I don't know what else should I write in this part.

Peer Feedback from Michelle

Hi Yuwei, here are my suggestions:

• For the material section, you may consider using a table for organizing the materials used in analogue modelling for easy visualization instead of a paragraph, for example:

Material properties	Material used	Actual layer represented
Low linear viscous	water and sugar solution, etc.	Mantle
High linear viscous	syrup and silicone putty, etc.	Ductile lithosphere
......	......	......

• I think you may expend your Experimental Apparatus section by introducing more machines used in analogue modelling other than the lateral compression machine.
• There are some minor grammar mistakes, such as the sentence in the last paragraph of the Materials section: “For the different property of layering, different material chooses.” could be changed to “....,different materials are chosen”.

Best,

Myip003 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Giovanni

Love your graphics, illustrative, well-scaled and informative. Well structured and, for the most part, easy to read. Some suggestion:

1. Avoid using long paragraphs.

2. Check your citations carefully.

3. When you make a reference within your own page, you can link it so the reader is just one click away from seeing your point.

Feedback from Jupiter

Your page about "Analogue Modelling (Geology)" is well organized with the good use of animation.

Here are some suggestions:

1. You have used some animation to illustrate modelling. It may be a good idea to include analogue real examples with the animations, such as an image of rock folding or thrust fault with the lateral compression animation, and an image of a caldera with the analogue model of the formation. In this case, the readers can directly relate the animated model with the actual geology.

2. In the "Scaling" section, it is good that you included a bunch of equations in explaining the similarity with definitions of parameters. For example, "the length of a natural prototype is $l_{n}^{p}$ (n=1, 2, 3…) and the angle is $\alpha _{n}^{p}$".If there is a page in Wikipedia giving a more detail explanation, such as Cauchy's equation, you may want to put a hyperlink to that page.

3. Citations are missing in the latter part of your page, which you may want to edit that later.

Feedback from Justin

Here are some comments:

1. The gif of material could label the material the model used.
2. Some citations are missing. In material part, you mention "The granular materials (various in density, shape, and size) (such as quartz sand, glass, and feldspar power [1] ) normally simulate the brittle upper crust. [8] "
3. Including more hyperlinks.
4. The example is so abstract, could you add a more complex example to show how sandbox modeling could help the scientists reconstruct the tectonic history of our earth. Some classical examples are preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinbl (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

2nd Reflection

• Adding some video for the samples of analogue modelling.
• Poorly repeat words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.92.226.248 (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Ivan

Hi Yuwei! These are some suggestions for your article:

• You have mentioned geodynamic processes are prolonged. You may introduce timescales of a few processes at least to provide a sense of time to the readers.
• It is very good to use equations in explaining the similarities between models and the real world. I think you could mention the superscripts (m and p) more explicitly to assist readers.
• In the section Dynamic similarity, as an alternative, you may introduce one equation and one explanation each time on the quantitative relationship one by one.
• May I assume the last figure should be a GIF too? Please check if it is working :)

Cheers,
Ivan
Ivancyyip (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Kevin on 20/11

Hi Yuwei,

I like the structure of your page - it guides me well to understand the general flow of this page. Equations, photos, GIFs and tables are used in assist with word prevention, which makes things much more interesting and easy to understand.

Here are some of my suggestions:

1. The GIFs are very clear to me. However, would it be clearer if some annotations on its kinematic are added to the GIF? Other readers may not be able to match the GIF with the descriptions below.

2. More comparisons can be made with other modelling methods to highlight its goods and bads, which can give readers a clear idea of different aspects of this method in comparison to others.

3. The mathematical expressions in scaling part are a bit difficult to understand.

Kevnmh (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

3rd Reflection

This is a great practice of English writing. I also gained the knowledge of analogue modelling. Explaining the things which in my mind is hard. Sometimes I feel I explained clearly but readers still confused. I always use very long sentences and make the uncertainty of explanations. The verb tense is important for the reader to understand.