Talk:Inner core super-rotation

Inner core super-rotation has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 10, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Inner core super-rotation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the inner core may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the Earth due to torque caused by Earth's geodynamo and the solidification of the core?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inner core super-rotation.

Wikipedia

2003 earthquake

The paper by Xu & Song (2003) uses data from earthquakes in the South Sandwich Islands area over a 30 year period (1967-1997). The current text states "In 2003 an earthquake occurring in the South Sandwich Islands allowed for accurate doublet data to confirm the discrepancy in travel time ,confirming the initial 1996 findings and largely settling the debate" supported by a citation to Xu & Song (2003). Is there another uncited paper that analyses a 2003 earthquake? If not, this section needs a rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that the missing citation is to Zhang et al 2005, which uses a 2003 Mb 5.6 South Sandwich Islands earthquake as part of a pair with a 5.5 Mb earthquake in 1993 - is that correct? Mikenorton (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikenorton! Yes, I was referring to the 2005 Zhang and Song paper that uses the 2003 earthquake as data. I added the correct reference and removed the old one. Good catch. Jsobe (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense now. Mikenorton (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inner core super-rotation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio check is clean Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No edit warring Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

References links are clean. [1] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

Lede is very short. Could we expand? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]
I'd like to see information as to when it was first theorized in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

Theory

This is quite a short section. I would have thought this would have been the largest, to actually explain what the article is about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]
What is here is good. A little more would be helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

This "theory" section didn't have much theory. I have taken material from "Initial skepticism and response" and incorporated it into a new theory section, which is now at the end of the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting evidence

This could be a subsection of Theory Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

Much of this section is now in "Seismic observations", which are distinct from theory. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "Song and Richards?" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]
I take it Nature is a magazine? This needs to be made clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

I removed the reference to Nature in the text. More important is who did the work. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink seismometers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

There is no reference to seismometers in the new version. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not this article, but geodynamo is mentioned weirdly in dynamo theory. Perhaps mention it's a magnetic field rather than just wikilink. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

In "Background", I now have a more detailed description of the geodynamo theory. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial skepticism and response

confirming the initial 1996 findings - Does the article say that this still wasn't consensus? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

No longer relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang and Song - ^{[according to whom?]} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

No longer relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Nature for Science. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Pa·s"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]
Models after Song and Richards' theory was published (within a year) limited - The brackets here are weird. Perhaps Models produced within a year after... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Not done[reply]

No longer relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rest is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On hold. Needs a little bit adding to theory and lede. there's also a few times where concepts (mostly people) are thrown in without attribution as to who/what they are. Easy fixes however. Overall, pretty good article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am starting to work on this article. Unfortunately, its presentation of the facts is not well organized and leaves some important stuff out, so I will have to do some significant rewriting. I hope to do it over the next few days. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries RockMagnetist - Take your time. Thanks for taking a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Lee Vilenski: I have completely rewritten the article, taking into account your comments where still relevant, and I hope that it is now a more coherent and balanced presentation. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll take a look today. Thanks for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll just put my new thoughts below:

New article review

lede needs some supposition. I think the article in general suffers from not enough of this. When reading an article, any reader should be able to find out what the article is about immediately. I'd put the words "scientific/environmental theory" (or better wording) in the first paragraph somewhere.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of my goals in rewriting this article was to make it more self-explanatory, but one can always do more. However, "inner core super-rotation" refers to the rotation, not the theory. I changed "hypothetical" to "theorized" and linked to Scientific theory. Will that do? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a "mean radius" is, but not every reader will know. Considering mean has two meanings (probably more), it should at least be wikilinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]
Images with captions should also have text that isn't usual wikilinked. South Sandwich Islands, inner core, etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

That's a confusing sentence. Since the captions have no wikilinks, I assume you want me to add them. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised that PKP (disambiguation) has no links to p-waves. I know it's not this article, but it should be there if it's an abbreviation like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

I agree, that was an omission that needed fixing. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rest is good. I'm not sure we need two subsections for Heterogeneity and Normal modes considering they are both so small. Is there a cover all term for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I struggled with. The section would be too long without breaks, but there is less to say about some subjects. There is little or no overlap between heterogeneity and normal modes. Probably the best thing is to add a little to the short subsections; I'll see what I can do. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few points above RockMagnetist

Possible Update?

Should the article be updated in lieu of this? 2601:183:4A80:E570:4CE1:D552:D524:9790 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing, based on this article. Going by that, the very first sentence of the lead (for a net rotation rate that is faster than Earth as a whole) is already outdated. @RockMagnetist: thoughts on this? Lennart97 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the Sun is white now in the daily sky?

Since this affects the magnetosphere, Van Allen belt, etc.. 79.121.40.50 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]