Talk:Remote sensing in geology

Review from Graeme Bartlett

I will say more later, but my first comment is that GPS is not remote sensing! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would like you to say more about the spectral features for rock diagnosis, that you hint are "in the literature". You could have a paragraph on each of Quartz Index, Carbonate Index and Mafic Index.
• In the Geomorphology section there are quite a few paragraphs with no reference. If reference 5 applies you can stick it on the end of each paragraph.
• Please add more doi's to your references, and if you have a link to an openly readable online copy, please add that.
• You have probably written more than you need on the overview, and it could be slightly reduced.
• More remote sensing "pictures" of geological things should be included to give the sense of what can be seen.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

review from youknowwhoiwillbe

The introduction of the usage of remote sensing is very detailed. sometimes it is too detailed that I get lost in the word. Maybe try to use fewer scientific vocabularies or scientific concepts or cut away some sophisticated parts?

In the landforms part, i think it is a bit less related to the remote sensing but to introduce the meaning of the concept ? Try to correlate it back to remote sensing, such as how it will look like under remote sensing images and how to interpret the landform under remote sensing images.

Try to use bullets in presenting parallel ideas, e.g. in geologic hazard, it shall be landslide, Earthquake, and volcanism. It makes the structure clear and sound.

Youknowwhoiwillbe (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from dinohk

1. While it's great that you went into such detail on remote sensing, explaining at length what it is would be more in the scope of the existing page on remote sensing. It's probably sufficient to give a quick explanation on remote sensing before moving on to aspects pertaining to geology specifically.

2. As stated above, landform classification is beyond the scope of your topic, just stick to what remote sensing can tell us about landforms

3. If you are planning on expanding the section of physical principles I would restrict that to ones where they are specific to geology and nothing else, otherwise it should be covered under the remote sensing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Jay

1. In some paragraphs, such as the first paragraph of 'Applications', the choice of vocabulary may be better in a more straight-forward way. As it is an encyclopedia, facts may be written more directly with more simple language, instead of a style of writing an article.

2. The landform part seems to be over-detailed. It may be better to showcase what kind of features of the remote sensing image can help users to recognize these landforms, while less paragraphs is required to explain the details of each kind of landform.

3. As there is already a remote sensing wiki page, as your page may likely to appear as a link within the broader remote sensing, overlapping content may be omitted to focus the content more on geology-specified remote sensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldsetJ (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Wlamwk

Hi Wcpatrick6572:

1. While there so many useful and detailed information included, it may be good to use a table, listing out the applications and their corresponding remote sensing techniques as a summary.

2. Regarding the geomorphology section, I think it is good to include different landforms as examples in illustrating how remote sensing can do the job. However, it may be better to rearrange the order of description in each sub-section by first telling the remote sensing part, then adding the details of the landforms as examples.

3. The last few sections seem to be a bit loose in terms of structure of the whole page. You may consider arranging them into different sub-sections. For example, the “Image Processing” part may be grouped under “Physical Principles” as the typical workflow for tackling geological problem is already mentioned there.

--Wlamwk (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Review from Jupiter

Hi Wcpatrick6572.

Your page gives a very detailed usage of remote sensing in geology. Good use of flow chats to present the concepts and pictures to present the images from remote sensing.

Here are some suggestions:

1. For some sections, you may want to seek for existing main article on Wikipedia, and put is as the main article in the subsection. In this case, you can give a short summary in your text and direct readers to the main article. For example, in "Image Processing", there are pages of Image analysis and Digital image processing. Thus, your page may be less lengthy.

2. Same as above. For the part of landform classification, you may want to put that in one section, state the main article with List of landforms and Landform and gives some short example of remote sensing-related applications. Therefore, the readers can easily understand the relationship of landforms (Geomorphology) and remote sensing with examples, and they can check other pages if they are interested in more landforms.

3. Also, the same problem happens in the section of "Planetary Observation" and "Proxies".

4. You have used a lot of technical term in your text. For example, "However metamorphic rocks are often found in mixed terrain, where image enhancements, for instance false colour composite (FCC) and intensity-hue-saturation (IHS) transformation could aid the identification." Readers not familiar with the topic may get lost in the text and find it difficult to understand. I know some of the terms are essential, but a simpler sentence structure and easier wording will be helpful.

Feedback from Leonkh

The page covers a broad area of remote sensing on geology which is very informative. But there are some few minor things i can suggest.

1. More DOI can be added into the references as some reader may be interested in some sections and they can access the article more easily

2. Some more hyperlink can be added for example 'LiDAR' and 'RADAR' in the first paragraph of the part 'Working Principles'. Some hyperlink can be modified better like the 'TIR' in the table in 'Working Principles' which is not linked to TIR

3. More photos of applying remote sensing to geology can be added and the photos can be bigger and with more explanation

00:09 21/11/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonkh (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

An easy and simple wordings and explanation will be helpful. Try to consider how to present these concepts to a reader with limited geological and remote sensing knowledge. Intensive use of technical terms, long paragraph and lengthy sentences may make your page less effective in communication. Jupmira104 (talk)

Feedback from Jupiter 20171120

The introduction gives a good description and indicating the concept of remote sensing and its application in geology. The page is with good structure and many geological information. Good choice and use of USGS images. Just some minor suggestions, the chart of mineral quartz spectral reflectance is too small, which the words are unreadable. You may want to enlarge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupmira104 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback by Celia

I think your page is well structured and clear! I think there can be few areas of improvement: 1. Sometimes if I am not reading from beginning till the end I might not always be able to catch to the abbreviations. So it might be better if you can put a bracket of the full name in the beginning of every section.

2. I think if there can be more photos showing how various remote sensing methods can be done. For example, there are no picture for the soil and rock remote sensing part?

3. I think the introduction part is a little bit too long so pretty hard to catch the main info. Celiayangyy (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from youknowwhoiwillbe

1. How about the physical device/gadget/machines that are involved in a remote sensing? from sensor to the printed image in the desk ?you can expand the content from the names

2.in case you feel like writing more, you may expand the context to using remote sensing in the mapping of seafloor that will be interesting.

3. you dont necessarily summarize all the context of the page in the introduction. leave the less important e.g. collaboration with GIS system, away from it so the focus will be clearer.

Youknowwhoiwillbe (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Review from Dinohk

It would be great if you can add some images of the equipment used in remote sensing.

Try to use less jargon in your writing to make it easier to follow.

Overall it's a pretty comprehensive overview of your topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohk (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

name change and credits

This article should be re-titled Remote sensing in geology, as it is merely a subtopic of Remote sensing, not a distinct usage of the term (see WP:NATURALDIS). Usually parenthetical disambiguation is used when a name is completely different, like an article about a racehorse with the same name would be "Remote sensing (horse)", and Remote Sensing (journal) is a distinct entity (a publication) from the field of remote sensing. Similarly, we don't have History (United States), but rather History of the United States. Following the same rational, Remote sensing (archaeology) should be retitled Remote sensing in archaeology or Remote sensing techniques in archaeology. Lastly, it is neither necessary nor customary to include credits in captions like "Credit: U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior/USGS Landsat", unless relevant to the subject. This is discussed in MOS:CREDITS. Public domain images can and should be re-worked for the purposes of the article: this is not a USGS publication, and we are under no obligation to use their logo or credit. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)