User talk:Arblanchette/sandbox-LAB-2019

Alex, I liked the changes you put on the text. There are some comments I organized in the form of Simon's questionnaire that I hope be useful to you:

1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing? The new organization is better, but if the Introduction won’t be touched, I think that there will be a need to add a section on Chemical Boundary.

2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Yes, he organized the text in three subheadings.

3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? It is well ordered.

CONTENT (50%)

4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain. The writer subdivided the definition of LAB on an easier way to summarize it and explain these parts.

5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what is missing? Seems that the writer delivered a good synopsis, but he must decide how to match the introductory part concerning the comment on Chemical Boundary. Perhaps should be important to comment on and make clear the various names of the Gutenberg discontinuity.

CITATIONS (10%)

6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting. There is some formatting yet to be done.

7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies. Yes

GRAMMAR AND STYLE (10%)

8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems? In Mechanical Boundary Layer, I think there are two mistakes: “contained” seems to be an automatic correction of “constrained” that sounds with a better accordance; let the infinitive form “… to estimate”. In Seismic LAB, because of the If clause would fit better “another definition of the seismic LAB would be the boundary”

Marcelo.silka (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Marcelo

Thanks for the review Marcelo! I have added a brief section on the CBL, while also providing a bit more of a connection to the Gutenberg discontinuity. I have corrected the typo on the location of earthquakes with respect to the lithosphere. I'm glad you find my organization of the LAB to be useful as I'm trying to split it up in an organized fashion, while trying to avoid the myriad intricacies of each description.Arblanchette (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most changes have been in adding the figure and weaving in the original LAB page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithosphere–asthenosphere_boundary) [and obviously I got rid of all the other stuff from the sandbox to make it as close to how it will look as possible]. I am currently having the most difficulty in providing smooth transitions throughout the text [I've done all of the obvious ones, but the reading is still a bit clunky). I'd like the most help with ensuring that the reader is able to maintain a smooth "flow" while reading this page. Arblanchette (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review

Hi, Alex, It looks great. Structure is OK. There was just an error with the date of Irina Artemieva’s reference when I opened your page. One suggestion, shields and platforms already have their articles in Wikipedia. Take a look if it is useful to put wikilinks on both words at the end of your text in "(also known as shields and platforms)". Another minor suggestion - more a stylistic thing, I guess - in the legend of “Schematic diagram …”, I would change “… and as a mechanical …” to “… or as a mechanical …”. It is up to you. 171.66.10.154 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]