User talk:Kaiwenw/sandbox

Cfurrer (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ORGANIZATION

1. The basic sections were adequate, but structure could be improved by giving each theory its own paragraph.

2. Subheadings were used well

3. Structure was logical and easy to follow

CONTENT

1. The content was very broad in its coverage. Lots of studies were examined, which is great. However, sentences had a lot of ambiguity. There are only three large paragraphs, which makes the information difficult to digest.

2. Coverage of all studies and topics was very thorough. However, I would recommend changing tone around introducing each study. The readers should understand that these are all just proposed models.

CITATIONS

1. The sources were properly compiled, but not cited often enough. In the body of the article, it’s often appropriate to add a citation for every sentence. I would recommend reviewing each claim that is made, and then attaching an appropriate citation to it.

2. All references were properly cited

GRAMMAR AND STYLE

1. There are a few grammatical and spelling problems, but overall good.

2. The writing style is clear. Paragraphs tended to run too long, but this can be fixed by splitting them up.

OTHER COMMENTS

First of all, the article appears very well researched, so great job. Also, there are lots of visuals and it looks really good.

No hyperlinks in the article. I would recommend hyperlinking to other relevant concepts when you mention them. For example, you mention the Core-Mantle Boundary — I recommend linking to that article via the link tool.

Ambiguity

   References to “He”

   References to “They”

   Sentences with no reference or source. 

Consider splitting Thermodynamic Evidence section into pieces. Each study is different — I would recommend rewriting the article to reflect the controversial nature of the matter. Have a subsection for each of the theories maybe.

There are stretches of 3 to 4 sentences where you don’t cite a single paper. I would recommend finishing most sentences with a citation from at least one paper that backs up that sentence.

Overall, because it’s a highly debated topic, I would recommend reconfiguring the structure of your article to reflect that all studies mentioned are still just theoretical.

Images:

I recommend double-checking that the images you use are in the public domain. The first one (heat flow of the inner earth) contains a citation for a paper in the image itself.

Additionally, captions on images should be backed up by citations. When you state “The Earth at its early stage is much hotter than current time.”, you should cite a few good sources that make that claim.

Response to reviews by Cfurrer

Thanks for giving helpful suggestions. My response to the comments are the following:

1. The reviewer suggested separate the studies within each subsection into short paragraphs. I agree that the current paragraph might contain too much information. Tianze suggested to me that adding a table that summarizes the age estimations could help the readers easily get the variance of the age estimations.
2. The reviewer also suggested changing the tone to indicate uncertainty. I changed the first sentence of the lead and the first subsection accordingly.
3. The citations are moved to the end of each study.
4. Add some hyperlinks to relevant concepts.
5. Fix some grammar problems and inconsistent references to “he” and “they”.
6. The images used are all from existing wiki common sources. I confirmed that they are all in the public domain.
7. Add citation in the referred figure caption.

Kaiwenw (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Places need help: I guess I need help to check if the sentences read well and easy for the general public to understand. Possibly there might be some grammar mistakes I ignored. Any other suggestions or comments are also welcome.

Kaiwenw (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cfurrer (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Second round review

The reorganization was very effective. The article is laid out nicely and well organized. The new table looks great and adds a lot to the content of the piece. You added links to important pages and increased citations and it makes the article look great.

I would consider combining these two sentences

“Labrosse, however, present a different view in his later work in 2003. He suggest that if we consider Ohmic dissipation, the age of Earth’s inner core should be only a few hundred million years older with the presence of radioactive elements”

Overall great job revising! I think it’s a fantastic article.

Response to the second round review

Thanks for fast response. I combined the two sentences as suggested. I also make it live in the existing wiki page 'inner core'. Hope I will get more comments or suggestions from other Wikipedians.

Kaiwenw (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)