Jump to content

Talk:Inner core super-rotation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2003 earthquake

[edit]

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

[edit]
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 (talkcontribs) 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

[edit]
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

Theory

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

Initial skepticism and response

[edit]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

New article review

[edit]
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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]
  • 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?

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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