Talk:Microcracks in rock

Recommendation from Alex:

1. In the "Evolution of microcracks" section, it can add a series of diagrams to illustrate the concepts of "microcracks" for helping the readers to understand this concept more clearly.
2. For every figure should include the citation from the authors. (e.g. Modified from authors, year)
3. In the "Loading scheme" sub-section, adding brief description for mode I (opening), mode II (in-plane shear), and mode III (out-plane shear) to enhance readers' understanding.

--Alexnlk (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation: 1. I think the 1st section "Microcrack in rock" should be your introduction section? If so, it would better to put it above the content list so that readers can read it in the first place. 2 The 1st letter of "microcrack formation mechanism" can be capital to eliminate any misleads. 3. In the "evolution of microcracks", more elaboration can be on the 2nd and 3rd factor in controlling microcracking behaviors i.e. pre-existing weaknesses and stress state. --Charlespsml (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Recommendations from Karen:

• Check license for your figures, they disppeared!
• I think you can add some illustrations under "Microcrack formation mechanisms" to show mechanisms contributing to the induction of microcracks.
• I think you can also add some photos of different configurations of rock specimens.
• I think you can simply change the title "Implication" to "Geological implication" as there is not such need to make a new subsection here.

--LkwkarenHKU (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme

This looks like a good topic for Wikipedia.

Your first illustration, a cut from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHFX_ePRH2M actually seems to be from lnywong. If you know lnywong then perhaps you can get then to release their youtube video under a suitable license, eg CC-BY-4.0. lnywong can do that by adding text to the description, though I think that youtube has a special way to indicate a CC-BY license. However if you don't know this person and have copied the video without permission then we cannot have it on Wikipedia. Did you take the photo in File:Loading test.jpeg? If so you will have to supply a license to enable others including Wikipedia to use it. CC-BY-4.0 is a possible license. Also we need to know how come you have ownership of that picture, eg self-taken photo is a good reason!

You talk about an "experiment", but it is not clear what that is so an explanation would be useful near where you first mention it.

Please reduce the use of abbreviations. You can mention the abbreviation when the term is first used, but don't go on to use that abbreviation in the page, as it makes it much harder to read. Also the "CL" abbreviation is used without mentioning what it means. We are writing for someone with a high school education, that would mean 12 years of education. So I hope you can remember your target audience.

Also see Help:Link#Wikilinks for how to make those clickable links to other topics that may have articles in Wikipedia. (This can be sorted out later, as writing the text is the toughest part) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

-Comments from Ken: 1. Good use of bullet points which make things clear. 2. "These distribution have been tried to be explained by mathematical function." in "Characteristics of microcracks" may be too bulky. You may think about changing it back to active voice: "Mathematical functions have been used to explained these distributions. 3. In "Evolution", you tried to use FPZ instead of the full form. Yet, you only use it once. Use more or use none. 4. Too many abbreviations of elements' name.Kenwongtk (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Yansy:

1. I like the clear and simple illustrations.

2. The words in the illustration of "Elastic mismatches induced microcracking" and "Kink band and deformation lamellae associated microcracking" can be larger. Oh also "Kink" is spelled wrongly for the caption of the illustration.

3. In the section of "Chemically induced microcracking", you can introduce some examples of chemical reactions, instead of just having a line.

4. Maybe it's better to use the full term "acoustic emission" instead of AE for the rest of the paragraph

Yansytang (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jacqueline

1. sentences are short and generally quite easy to understand
2. some of the sections/subsections are quite short, so maybe it’s better to elaborate more e.g. “Influence”
3. In the subsection “Mechanically induced microcracking”, is it possible to use a table to show the mechanism, description and diagram in the same row? It might be easier to refer to the figures this way
4. Subsection titles under “Formation Mechanism” can omit the word “microcracking” since that’s already the subject of your page. E.g. “Mechanically-induced microcracking” can just be written as “Mechanically-induced)

JacqCLSin (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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: promoted by Montanabw (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that microcracks in rocks are oriented roughly parallel to the maximum applied stress? Kranz, Robert L. (1983-12-01). "Microcracks in rocks: A review". Tectonophysics. Continental Tectonics: Structure, Kinematics and Dynamics. 100 (1): 449–480. [1]

• Reviewed: Adil Bouafif

Moved to mainspace by AMLSIU (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook is rather technical, likely of limited interest to general readers, but I don't see that as a reason not to promote this DYK. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)