Talk:Seismic data acquisition

Earthquakes Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Seismic data acquisition is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review of the article, review done by SteffenCoe

Nice article, easy to read and to follow your thoughts and logic :) I definitely learned a few things by reading it!

I have a few suggestions for you:

There is a few "citation needed" instances. Check whether you can provide some reference/citation here.
introduction features very lenghty sentences. Maybe consider to split them into a few more, but shorter and more easy-to-read ones
2nd sentence in 2nd paragraph of introduction: very many terms, maybe consider splitting it up into more sentences/leaving a few out/grouping them? Otherwise the reader can get easily overwhelmed with so many terms that aren't explained right away
Maybe make different section structure (split Land/Marine acquisition):

- Survey parameters -- Source type --- Land acquisition --- Marine acquisition -- Receiver type ...and so on

1st paragraph of "Source type - land acquisition": a few too little citations. If you used the citations that you provided, but no additional ones, just reuse them for several times, just to make clear where you got the information from for each claim
Avoid the overuse of the word "typically"; I have removed it a few times ;)
Signal-to-noise ratio was linked 4 times, but links shall only be created for the first appearance of a term, so I removed the latter 3
Section on "Sampling interval and Nyquist criterion" doesn't contain any citations, please add a few!
Section on "Record length" only contains one citation, please add a few!

--SteffenCoe (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the article, review done by LNQuaroni

Hi, nice article and definitely well written! I have performed some minor changes, mainly for some sentences whose meaning was a little obscure. My suggestions are:

More citations (there's a lack of scientific papers cited)
Add the pages of the books you have consulted
I changed to italics a sentence in the introduction since it is the same as the definition you found on the online dictionary; therefore it should be reported as a literal citation.

Ciao!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LNQuaroni (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Very interesting article from which I learned a lot! In the introduction I felt a bit overwhelmed at the first read, because the sentence is pretty long. However, I enjoyed reading it and it is well structured. --Floba007 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]