Talk:Core–mantle differentiation

ORGANIZATION (30%)

• Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing?

I think the sections adequately covered the different hypothesis for the differentiation of the core and the mantle but I was expecting some content other than that.

• Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?

Yes, subheadings were used very effectively to break the article into logical chunks.

• Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow?

Yes, the material was ordered very logically and was easy to follow.

CONTENT (50%)

• Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.

I don’t know much about this topic, so maybe I overestimate the scientific consensus on this issue, but overall I expected more content about the general process of core-mantle differentiation other than a survey of the different competing hypotheses for the formation. Something seemed missing but I’m not sure exactly what.

• Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing?

Yes, I think so. The article is well-researched.

CITATIONS (10%)

• Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.

Yes, with the caveat that both “other core-mantle differentiation models” came exclusively from one source. Ideally this section would have two or more sources to draw from.

• Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies.

Yes, as far as I could tell.

GRAMMAR AND STYLE (10%)

• Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?

No easily noticeable issues or anything that interfered with my comprehension of the article.

• Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?

Yes, although at times I thought the writing could try to be written in a style more friendly to laymen (the average reader who may not have much domain knowledge). Jreinstr (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Answers to comments

On ORGANIZATION: 1) I also have the feeling that something is missing and that other material could be added to the theories, but I still have no idea what it could be. 2) & 3) Thanks! I'll keep this structure.

On CONTENT: 1) This is related to what you mentioned in organization. There appears not to be a single picture, thus I found more suitable to report some of the theories. Still need to think more about what else can be included. 2) Thank you! Wendy helped me a lot with the references.

On CITATIONS: 1) You're right. I'll expand these sections going straight to the original papers. 2) Thanks!

On GRAMMAR AND STYLE: 1) Thanks! My English is often mangled, but I put extra effort in the article. 2) Thanks for the comment. I'll "decaffeinate" the text to make it more appealing for "non-initiated" readers. AlexInMetal (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes and concerns

After revising the Safronov's book I found that I had misunderstood Stevenson's paper. Safronov proposed a model of planet formation. The differentiation process is addressed mentioning Elsasser's model and Vityazev and Maleyva's model. I still work on that, for it is possible that I could incorporate such models into the big categories mentioned before them (percolation and diapirism).

My main concern coincides with my reviewer's comment about "something missing". I've enlisted theories, but it is my impression that something, such as a summary, is missing there. Or perhaps some other pertinent topics that I've failed to find. I need help to fill this gap. AlexInMetal (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Review

Hey there! To summarize my second review, I really like the changes you've made to the article! I appreciate you working to simplify the language and include more citations. My comment of "something missing" I think was addressed at least partially by your expansion of the summary at the beginning of the article - nice! I think you could benefit from expanding it even a bit further. One other comment I would say is that it would be worth adding some more info / explanation to the diagram with the three different core formation hypotheses. Other than that I like it! Jreinstr (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Second Review

Thanks for the comments! I'm glad that the article is taking better shape. I'll try to expand the summary more and add further explanations for the figures. AlexInMetal (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)