Talk:Earth's magnetic field/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a fun one to review. James^x12345 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "also known as the geomagnetic field" - "also known as the geomagnetic field"Y
• "energetic particles" - "charged particles"Y
• "simple compass" - "ordinary compass"Y
• link ozone layerY
• "The magnetic field of the Earth largely deflects most of the charged particles emanating from the Sun, thus protecting it from this solar wind." - "The magnetic field of the Earth largely deflects most of the solar wind emanating from the Sun, protecting it from the charged particles that would strip away the ozone layer which protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays." I think this makes more sense, but isn't perfect.Y
• I would personally dissolve the Importance heading into the intro. It only seems to provide background information - except for navigation, which could be a whole new heading under which Biomagnetism is a sub-heading.
• "The intensity of the field is greatest near the poles and weaker near the Equator" - needs a cite, as does "The field ranges between approximately 25,000 and 65,000 nT (0.25–0.65 G)."Y
• I'll set up a notes heading - just to prove I can :-) - for the non-ref. Not done
• What's a fridge magnet?Y
• Map of intensity and maxima/minima need refsY
• Inclination and Declination are also unsourced.Y
• The size of the images mean they are just "piling" down the right hand side - moving one or two to the left should fix that. Maybe
• Angle of tilt is 10 here - 11 in intro. One is out of date (presumably the smaller one?)Y
• Magnetic poles starts to get confusing. I'll have a think about how to make it less so.Y

@Jamesx12345:, sorry for the slow response. I am the main contributor to this article, but someone else nominated it and I somehow failed to notice the review! I'll start with the easy changes. I have done the minor wording changes (first five points). Ozone layer had a link, but I moved the link to the first appearance of the term. I have come up with an alternative wording for the longer passage, which I hope you'll like. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The maps of intensity, inclination and declination can be covered by a single reference, which I have provided. My comment about the intensity of the field being greatest near the poles, etc., is a bit of an overstatement. I have made a more cautious statement and referred to the map of inclination for support. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The current tilt is 10 degrees, so I have changed the lead. I wish it were true that moving the images to the left improved appearances. I have tried all sorts of arrangements, and having everything on the right seems the least bad. Probably the best solution (aesthetically) would be to add more text. Feel free to experiment, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I considered setting up a Notes section, but realized that it would have contained a single note. Instead, I have embedded the note into the text. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that Magnetic poles may be confusing because I didn't emphasize the local vs global nature of the definitions. I hope my rewording makes sense. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I thought this nomination had been abandoned, and was planning to close it in due course. I'll get on with reviewing the rest of the article over the weekend. Sorry about the slightly patronising tone - not intended. James^x12345 12:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I caught it in time! I didn't notice a patronizing tone. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Part 2

• "as though on an electromagnetic energy transmission line" - not sure what that is the best analogy.Y
• "solar wind is observable on the Earth" - you don't see the solar wind directly, just its effects.Y
• "inflate and thereby distort" - thereby could be removedY
• This latter half of this paragraph is doesn't appear to be sourced.Y
• The solar wind is responsible for... gets a bit unclear here again. It isn't clear what variations are being referred to.Y
• "A movie on the right" - an animationY
• Geomagnetic reversal can be linked Not done
• "in basalts, sediment cores taken from the ocean floors, and seafloor magnetic anomalies." - needs a ref.Y
• "However, a study published" - this sounds out of place (as if it was added later.)Y
• "Temporary dipole tilt variations that take the dipole axis across the equator and then back to the original polarity are known as excursions." - this needs a sourceY
• Future needs a few more refs as well.
• Are there more up-to-date sources for the drift of the magnetic north pole? Not done
• The first paragraph of Earth's core and the geodynamo needs a ref or two.Y
• "motion driven by buoyancy" could probably be removed. Maybe
• "both mechanisms somehow discredited" - this needs a ref, and some clarification.Y
• "Philip William Livermore" - since there is no page for him, the name can probably be removed, and the ref filled out to include his name.Y
• "Typical daily variations of field strength..." - "1 part in x" might be a clearer way of explaining the magnitude of deviation.Y
• Crustal magnetic anomalies needs a few refs again.
• (See magnetic storm.) can probably be taken out.Y
• Detection has lots of discrete unreferenced sentences, which doesn't look great. Running them together would improve the flow.
• Statistical models needs to be sourced. I don't know if it could be expanded at the same time as well. Not done
• Perhaps Global models and Statistical models could be merged? Not sure

Magnetic field reversals

• I didn't link Geomagnetic reversal, per WP:OVERLINK, because it is already listed as the main article for that section.
• "However, a study published" overstates the importance of that study and fails to place it in context. I have corrected it. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• The irony of the statement about worldwide evidence for reversals - it's one of the crucial arguments for the reality of reversals, yet it's remarkably hard to find a statement of it on a single page! I found one, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Earth's core and the geodynamo

• A couple of comments relate to a rather confused paragraph that was added in 2012 (with statements not supported by the citations). I have removed it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• My feeling about "motion driven by buoyancy" is that it allows the reader to keep reading without consulting the link to convection. However, if you disagree, I'll remove it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• I see a lot of complaints about the accessibility of this section in reader feedback, so I added a less technical first paragraph. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that as well. I counted at least four that were looking for its role in protection from cosmic rays, which seems to be a class research favourite.

Statistical models

• I know it's really hard to tell from the typography, but Global models is already a subsection of Statistical models. My intent is to have a general description of how the global field can be modeled, and then describe the widely used models. Any suggestions on making that more clear would be welcome. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• This section is sourced. If an entire paragraph comes from the same source, I put the source at the end of the paragraph. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Magnetic poles

• Yes, there are more recent figures - on pages like zengardner.com, godlikeproductions.com, and metabunk.org (the Earth's magnetic field seems to to inspire a lot of nuttiness). I couldn't find anything reliable, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I found that, oddly enough, with James Clerk Maxwell. The oddest things attract people...

I'm happy to pass this now. It definitely meets the criteria in its current form, but a more accessible section would be a bonus. Thanks for putting up with my reviewing. James^x12345 17:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work in reviewing it! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time.Fgnievinski (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Pass

Although the article is passed, many of the comments remain true and deserve a response. There were several comments on Magnetosphere; I decided to rewrite it completely to give it more coherence and better coverage of the material. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)