Talk:River bank failure

Informative and well organized. Some suggestions:

1) Text could use a bit of proofing for minor grammatical things (e.g. its/it's usage) and for flow.

2) The introduction and text in general could be made more accessible. It would be nice to start with river bank failure defined for the layman instead of a technical definition. Also, a clear statement of the significance of river bank failure - what is the implication for the average person? What parts of the world have rivers that are the most prone to river bank failure?.. info such as this would add a lot of interest here.

3) Would love to see a clear image of the immediate aftermath of river bank failure, if there is a usable photo out there somewhere..

4) Almost forgot.. the ref section needs fixing, something missing..

Bkilli1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alexandra, your page is very well structured and detailed. Here are my suggestions...

1. Link more vocabulary words to other wiki pages.

2. I thought the intro, table of contents and first picture looked a bit awkward in relation to the rest of the page. Maybe make the picture smaller or rearrange this part.

3. Add more references to strengthen the "Modes of Failure." Did all of the "Solutions" come from one source?

-Tyler Elorriaga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelorr1 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1

Really well written page, and well organized. There is a lot of information here and a solid outline will help the reader navigate through it. Minor suggestions to consider.

1. I just noticed a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrases that can easily be fixed. Get a sucker…I mean, nice person with a fresh set of eyes to proof it.

2. If you can, find an image differentiating between a bedrock bank and a cohesive bank? (if I read that part correctly) Just to really emphasize the differences.

3. Perhaps, in the headings where you give a couple examples of bank failure, include which kind of failure caused it within the heading. Also if you can, include a couple more Morabiac (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

2

I enjoyed the page. As mentioned above the outline could use some revising, especially under the Gravitational failure section. It seems that section has quite a few subsections that could possibly be organized a little differently. I like the pictures that you have but possibly another simple figure explaining a few of the different types of failure could be useful. Also, the tectonics section could use a little expansion considering the class itself is plate tectonics. With these minor fixes along with some grammatical errors it looks like a pretty complete page. --Andrew

3

I have decided to be 'the sucker' mentioned above for the first half of your paper. Here are some suggestions:

1)Intro: Second sentence: depends does not need to be capitalized. Fourth sentence: you could change ‘and tectonic activity’ to ‘and/or tectonic activity’, I personally just think it sounds more technical that way. There are multiple places throughout the paper where you use it’s instead of its. Use it’s to say it is, and its to show possession of something. 2)River Bank Description: In the River Bank Description section you start a sentence off with because. You could easily fix this by switching which side of the comma the two sections of the sentence are on. Hydraulically induced failure: In the hydraulically induced failure section there is a run-on sentence. ’Hydraulic toe erosion occurs when flow is in the direction of a bank at the bend of the river, the highest velocity is at the outer edge and in the center depth of the water’. You could split these two sentences at the comma and insert ‘This is because’ into the start of the second sentence. In the sentence after that remove the ‘,and’ and do the same thing. 3)Geotechnical Failure: I believe it would look and sound better to have the title of the section in its body paragraph at the start of Geotechnical Failure. Fourth sentence: cannot should be one word. Sixth sentence: change ‘freeze thaw’ to ‘freezing and thawing’ and remove the word ‘lay’ after may. I’m not quite sure how to fix the last three sentences in that paragraph. Last sentence: change ‘amterial’ to material. 4)Gravitational Failure: The first sentence has and in it too many times. It might look better if you switch the order of the first two sentences, but leave ‘Gravitational failure’ at the start and ‘it’ in the second sentence. You don’t need to capitalize failure in the body of the section. There should be a space between the period at the end of the fourth sentence and the word ‘Small’ at the start of the fifth sentence. In the fifth sentence a comma between at and or. Seventh sentence: change ‘that allow build up’ to ‘that allow for buildup’, also ‘build up’ should be one word. The ‘Shallow failure’ and ‘Popout failure’ paragraphs appear to be almost identical. Popout is two words according to Microsoft word, but if the paper you are getting it from has it as one word, as it is in your paper, then it is correct as is. Some sentences in this section are repeated multiple times. 5)1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquake: in the first sentence change ‘caused my earthquakes’ to ‘caused by earthquakes.’ Garrniel (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alexandra,

Good Job the page is informative. I have some suggestion you may think about:

• Split long paragraphs in the beginning into two short paragraphs.

• Is it possible to enlarge the font in figure three (Geotechnical failure)

• In the same figure you have two captions; is it possible to merge then into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadelfar (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)