Hey P.Sinclair, Would be nice to have a picture to show how the process works from a physical standpoint. You made mention of a table and moving the workpiece downwards, maybe some kind of diagram to show how that works more clearly? I edited your sentence to how I thought it meant, but I'm not sure if I was accurate in my interpretation.
Often times after the first mention of a new term and appropriately linking to wikipedia for more information, you don't need to link again. This is especially apparent in the first few paragraphs of your article, where you've linked things like laser and martensite quite a few times. Also, they don't need to be capitalised to function as a wikipedia link, but instead make words stand out oddly in an otherwise well written sentence.
Please try to find a synonym for system; I think it's your favourite word.
Your article covers a lot of material, and does a very good job of keeping it concise while maintaining relevancy. Going into more depth at times wouldn't hurt though as this is a piece of technical literature.
Except as a means of temporary storage, you might want to find a better way to hide those references. Right now it looks dishonest having 8 references, but only using 3 (?) in the article. I noticed you were able to 'comment' out where you talked about the references in the article, why don't you just comment out the rest of the references?
Good job P.Sinclair. Keep up the good work for the final article. Remember to find some kind of efficiency to justify your findings.
You still have not addressed the main point of the assignment - what are the energy or materials efficiency improvements? Quantify them as compared to other methods to obtain martensite -- it might not make any sense -- that is ok - but explain that. --Joshua 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)