Template:Did you know nominations/Numerical modeling (geology)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: by Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Numerical modeling (geology) edit

(

)

Numerical modeling of a seismic wave from an earthquake

... that numerical modeling can reveal the flow of the solid mantle beneath Earth's crust? Source:
- ALT1:~~... that numerical modeling can show the interactions of forces and motions inside planets?~~ Source:
- ALT2:... that numerical modeling has been used to predict the propagation of seismic waves? (example pictured)

Reviewed: 2017 IWBF Asia-Oceania Championships
Comment: part of University of Hong Kong/Regional Geology (Fall Semester 2017)

Created by Kakitc (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 04:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC).

This article is part of an educational project and is new enough and long enough. Approving ALT0 and ALT2, which have suitable inline citations for the hook facts. Not approving ALT1 which I cannot find in the article. The simulation is properly licensed and looks good in the article, but does not seem to be working in the thumbnail. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but in starting to read the article I found a lot of noun-verb confusion and other grammatical errors in one small section alone. I think the nominator or another copyeditor should go through the article to make sure it conforms with English grammar. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I will do a copyedit to address this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

copyedit complete.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, does the article read well enough for you now? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit, Graeme Bartlett. I read the whole article through and did a little more copyediting for grammar.
I noted a missing word or two in the second image under "Kinematic descriptions".
A verb seems to be missing in this sentence: The finite volume method can be applied on irregular meshes like the finite element method and the element equations are still intuitive physically like the finite difference method. Should it say "intuited" rather than "intuitive"?
This clause is also hard to parse grammatically: while the rheological approach models the plates as a highly viscous fluid that the equations applied to the lithosphere beneath them also applies to the plates.
In general, the article uses the same highly technical expressions over and over, so the subject will not be understood by anyone except a geology major. It would be helpful to add to the end of the lead some of the examples of a "variety of geological processes" which can be understood with numerical modeling, to make the lead (at least) more user-friendly. Thanks,Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the copyediting points. I will attempt the lede expansion later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Applications summarised in lede. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for taking care of everything. The lead is much more understandable now, thanks! Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)