Talk:Spectroradiometry for Earth and planetary remote sensing

Peer feedback from Calvin

Hi Morris,

Great wiki page with rich contents! Here are some comments:

1. Love the animation showing how monochromator splits light into different wavelength. But some figures can be larger for better viewing the content of it, for example, the figure illustrating the differences between multi- and hyperspectral imaging.
2. Good use of table to summarize the content. May also consider to use table to organize the specification of different types of mineral on Mars.
3. Consider moving the section of mineral identification to application instead of working principles.

Good luck!

Cheers,

Calvin Calvinw72 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Maybe you can summarize the paragraphs containing lots of number into table for better comparison purpose (e.g. Different clay minerals and iron oxides in the Geomorphology and surface mapping section)
2. For the Spectroradiometers part, it will be better to show some images of the actual components or the whole device.
3. It would be better to reduce some words in the introduction part to help the readers having a better overview of the whole page.

Calvinw72 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Louis

1. Maybe you can make use of sub-heading in the Resolution of Spectroradiometers to improve readability.
2. Add a application heading before talking about the applications, instead of using "The following sections will delve into the applications of spectroradiometry in various perspectives of geosciences."
3. Perhaps mention about the fundamental physics behind the spectroradiometers to improve the overall understanding.

Louiskmn (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Add some graphics (e.g. reflectance spectrum of different minerals) may help improve understanding.
2. For the table, I think you may want to reference every number in the resolution column.
3. The page looks professional, good effort!

Louiskmn (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from Jasmine

1. Have spectroradiometry in a title font right at the start of the page just to make completely clear to the audience what they are reading about.

2. Could make the first sentence more specific to the topic, rather than saying it has broad applications, make it a snappy sentence that summarises what spectroradiometry is in the most fundamental sense, then continue with the rest of the paragraph and going into detail.

3. In the resolution paragraph, maybe bullet point the resolution types so that they stand out to the reader.

Great page!

Jasmineforshaw (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Could add in some diagrams of the absorption lines/features relating to the minerals. They are well described in text but it would be good to have a visual aid and good for visual comparison of mineral absorption features.

Jasmineforshaw (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from Tony

1. A diagram showing the components of fore optics can better visualize its composition.

2. Sub-titles of the resolutions can be added on top of the descriptions of each resolution.

3. Good to use tables to show the practical usage of spectrometer in real life.

4. For “Mineral Identification” section, would it be possible to add a table showing the reflective wavelength of some common minerals?

5. A little typo in “Geochrology” section: “sediments [26][27]> Volcanic…..”

2nd Feedback

1. It could be better if you indicate the portions of wavelengths in the visualization.

2. Minor typo: “Mineral Identification”: Therefore, minimize such interference…. & “Geomorphology and surface mapping”: Chemical Weathering is one…..

3. You can give separate subtitles for Tephrochronology and Surface Dating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngeo21*gnik (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Reflection notes

Overall, the creation of a Wikipedia article has provided me with a valuable opportunity to delve into the subject matter in depth, through reading scientific journals (rapidly reading journals through identifying the most important elements - Problem, Prediction, Hypothesis, Results and Evaluations), and share my knowledge with a wider audience. Some takeaways from this assignment in the following aspects:

1. Scientific Communication: Developing a Wikipedia article requires effective scientific communication skills. In this course, I am trained to convey complex scientific concepts in a clear and concise manner (in a well structured page), making them accessible and understandable to a broader audience by putting myself to the readers' shoes.

2. Synthesizing Scientific Concepts: Creating a Wikipedia article requires the ability to synthesize and organize information from various sources. I have honed my skills in critically analyzing scientific literature and extracting key points to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and a well-defined scope of research.

3. Catering to Readers: Writing for Wikipedia means considering a diverse readership with varying levels of scientific knowledge, from students to professionals and the general public. I have to strike a balance between providing sufficient technical concepts for those familiar with the subject, while also presenting and conceptualizing the information in a way that is understandable and engaging for general readers, for instance, by producing figures and illustrative diagrams.

4. Understanding Reliable Sources: Wikipedia places a strong emphasis on reliable sources. Throughout the assignment, I have gained experience in evaluating and selecting trustworthy scientific sources, and the ability to critically assess the credibility and validity of scientific information.

5. Collaboration and Feedback: Through interactions with other editors (peers, teachers), I have experienced the iterative process of refining my own article based on suggestions and constructive criticism, and learning to accept and incorporate feedback for continuous improvement.