Talk:Atmospheric correction for interferometric synthetic aperture radar technique

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Feedback for the page

  1. Can you add some linkage to different words like "troposphere", "ionosphere", "radiosonde"? It is much easier to understand the page if there is some linkage that point me to other Wikipedia page.
  2. Is it possible to add example to the calculation part?
  3. Can you add some text to explain the 'schematic resolution comparison InSAR and GPS for a large area'? For example, what is the red dots represent?

Hope me feedback is helpful Gabriel HY Lam (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victor

Hi! I am Victor. Here are some suggestions.

1. I think the conclusion part is not necessary. Instead, it can be replaced by a part called "comparison of technique".

2. More explanations for the illustrations will be better. E.g. "Schematic resolution comparison of InSAR and GPS for a large area", "Figure 5". Also, for the figures, I suggest that you can name them as figure 1, 2, 3, 4.....

3. For "Tropospheric correction methods", it includes a lot of equations and it is quite difficult to follow. Maybe you can focus only on 1-2 equations and give more detailed and simple explanations so that an audience with no science background can better understand.

Thank you VictorSo1031 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. For equation 1, I suggest adding explanations on what other phi symbols refer to, like what you did for atmospheric artifacts φatm

2. I'd like see a table summarising the advantages and limitations of the correction methods.

3. It might be better to avoid using the pronoun 'we' in the ERA5 section. Matt.chw (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme

  • The above comments are good. Are you going to go into any more detail on ionospheric delays? Does clouds or rain affect the signal delay? (I know that it can scatter some signal).
  • The atmosphere puts a curve into the radio waves, not just adding a delay; How does that affect the results?
  • SAR can also be done from aeroplanes, but is that useful for InSAR?
  • It would be good to see the atmospheric effect on some differential images
  • SA Radar was used to map Venus and Titan. The atmospheres there are much thicker than on Earth. Was anything learnt about their atmospheres?
  • I will add that I would like to see what each symbol in your formulae represent. I can guess that z could be height, but is it distance along the beam line, or above terrain or above datum?
  • You mention PS and SBAS, but I cannot tell what you mean by those abbreviations.
  • Also there are ERA-I, ERA5, MERRA1, MERRA2 numerical weather models, but can you explain a little about those?
  • You mention "80–290 m for topography mapping " for 20% humidity change, this sounds amazing, but is it correct?
  • to get a superscript say 105 do it like this: 10<sup>5</sup> with the sup tag.
  • instead of using "/" as in "stacking/filtering" "time-correlated/time-independent", express what you mean in words as it is not clear what the meaning is. (see
    MOS:SLASH
    for the background on this).

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victor (14/11)

Hi! I am Victor. Here are some suggestions.

1. More bluelinks can be included in the last 2 parts.

2. Again, I do not think a summary part is necessary for a wikipedia page.

3. Some figures need to be bigger.

Thank you. VictorSo1031 (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miko (15 Nov)

Hello! This is Miko here! I would like to suggest some of the ideas for you to see if which can helps you getting your WIKI page better!

1. FIGURES: Please enlarge all the photos so that readers can see the little words in the photos clearly.

2. For PS and SBAS, I don’t quite understand what you mean by those abbreviations: (as shown below)

- In this section - Time series methods such as Persistent Scatter (PS) and Small Baseline Subset (SBAS). One of the approaches (what are the other approaches?) used to mitigate tropospheric effects on InSAR measurements has been stacking[17].

- The other advantage of this method is independent on external data and straightforward to implement. (Just these advantages?)

3. Limitation ( Do you mind changing this word into a larger title)

4. CITATION: Hu, ZhongBo (2019). Atmospheric artifacts correction for insar using empirical model and numerical weather prediction models (http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text thesis) (in Spanish). Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC). (Thesis). {{cite thesis}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Please double check on no.13 citation.

5. It would be great if you can make some tables e.g. the Advantage and Limitations of some correction methods.

6. Check the spellings i.e. MOSLTY

Hope these comments can help you! Mikocheung (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Timothy

  1. Overall a very in-depth analysis of atmospheric correction. However as a non-meteorologist, I find it hard to follow a lot of the technical terms and equations, maybe simplify some of the stuff?
  2. A lot of technical terms can be hyperlinked eg. artifact displacement, Interferogram, phase decorrelation, orbital errors, phase-unwrapping errors etc.
  3. Equations and the variables under the Tropospheric correction methods are very difficult to follow, for example, 'local incidence angle' has never been mentioned or expounded upon before, but is defined as θ in the equation.
  4. Overall a great, detailed and technical page (just a bit difficult to understand)

Timothy D. Chow (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by 97198 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
[[File:|140px|Atmosphere effects path or radar ]]
Atmosphere effects path or radar

Moved to mainspace by Mhmnia11 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - highly debatable; the first three sources I looked at are close to unusable, and I would be greatly surprised if they were the only three:
    • The first source, Radar Interferometry, used for quite a few (10!) citations, is a book of 308 pages! It is not reasonable to just link to a book of that size without page numbers as a reference for a specific fact, we need the specific page number or at worst a short range of page numbers, please.
    • The second source is a copy of the first. Combine, please.
    • The fifth source, InSARMeteorologyMiami2018, is a website that has basically no information on the page linked to. Presumably the information is to be found somewhere on the website? Be specific please. Also it seems to be a WorldPress website that is hitting an edit filter as I try to write about it here. Are you very sure it's a reliable source?
  • Neutral
    : No - not really; the article seems to be written from a point of view of endorsing the technique, and directly addressing its users or potential users, rather than a neutral, critical appraisal. There several examples below but there are more that can be easily found
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - not really. I mean, I guess the hook is kind of restating the whole point of the article, but I don't see a specific citation for it
  • Interesting: No - again, not really. Again, this is the whole point of the article, but it fails to pique the curiosity. Either the reader is already interested in the technique just from the article title, or not, but the hook does nothing except restate the article title.

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This article is among the oldest in DYK that has not had at least a start at a review, and I think I understand why: it's quite difficult to read. I'm sure prospective reviewers take one glance and move on to something easy, like ancient Etruscan history. Ideally this needs a review by SAR expert, but they're few and far between at DYK. I am a mere computer programmer, but did actually work on a SAR-adjacent project for a couple of years in my career, so I think while I'm not going to be good, I am going to be as good as the next person.

  • The article has two maintenance tags that could be cleared up. (
    Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide
    specifically says the orphan tag isn't a blocking problem, and honestly I'm not sure that the lead really is too long relative to the rest of the article, but do ask the person who placed it, and figure it out please.)
  • The article desperately needs a good copy edit. For example, I've got multiple nits to pick with the very first sentence!
    • The very first two words are "Atmospheric Correction", but the title is "Atmospheric correction". Does the C need capitalization or not?
    • "Atmospheric Correction for Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technique is a set of different methods..." - Maybe insert a The, so "The Atmospheric correction ... technique is a set of ..."?
    • Bold the title of the article,
      MOS:BOLDLEAD
      . "The Atmospheric correction technique ..."

Yet more

    • Randomly capitalized words, "from an Interferogram"; "atmospheric research in Meteorology because"; "the Ionospheric noise artifact"; "measurements are Satellite-based observations"; "integration of zenithal path on the grid points of Pressure, Temperature and relative humidity", etc.
    • Random font changes: underlined, bolded and italicized Limitations; random boldings in the Variables of ERA5 data table; at least three different font variations in the "Available packages for atmospheric correction" section for no obvious reason
    • In fact, what's the point of the Variables of ERA5 data table? What is the reader to make of the information that ozone_mass_mixing_ratio is o3 while specific_snow_water_content is cswc? That doesn't seem to be explained anywhere.
    • Multiple instructions to (click on the link ) in the "Available packages for atmospheric correction" section. We don't do that, we include links in the "External links" section with a brief description, we don't include instructions to the reader in the article body.
    • Misspellings: propagationtion ; artifact or artefact (pick one - or are these different?)
    • "In terms of Meteorology, tropospheric delay interestingly can be regarded as a useful tool for Meteorology purposes." - The words "interestingly" should be removed as not an opinion we should express in Wikipedia's voice, what does "can be regarded" mean - by whom?, Metereology twice is redundant...
    • More about misuse of Wikipedia's voice: "unwrapping and geometry errors should be considered to reach a trustable result" - we don't give our readers instructions like "should", and what does "trustable" mean?
    • "There are several methods to remove all these noises until a reasonable and acceptable amount except atmospheric effects with high accuracy." - What does that mean? Are there words missing?
    • File:Reflection0010013s.tif is also up for deletion, also File:Ppt file Seminar 28.jpg, File:Teneaw.jpg. I didn't check the others, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
      • In any case, what does the file name Teneaw mean? The others are only slightly better in terms of meaningfulness.
    • "Overall, the tropospheric error on interferogram can be classified into space and time:" is followed by a mysterious table that does not define its terms very well. What is vertical stratification, for example? Throughout the article multiple technical terms are used without being defined

I'm stopping here not because I've exhausted the issues, but just because I've exhausted myself. I've tried to read the article for three days now and it's defeated me; despite my best efforts trying to understand it I now understand no more about the technique than I did when I read the title. I'm going to mark this as a "maybe" since nothing here is theoretically unfixable, but there is so much work required to make this into a neutral and comprehensible encyclopedia article that without what amounts to a complete rewrite, this is close to a "no". I'm sorry. GRuban (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atmospheric_correction_for_interferometric_synthetic_aperture_radar_technique&oldid=1167383187"