User:Cpnoll/Earth's outer core/Jiinjung Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Christopher Noll's Earth's outer core draft


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cpnoll/Earth's outer core
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

N/A

1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing?
Yes. This is a subsection (i.e., composition section, core formation history & magnetic field section ?) of the preexisting page on Earth's outer core.

2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?
Yes, subheadings were well used.

3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow?
Yes! This page has a material order of the Earth's outer core's composition, core formation/evolution, and magnetic field and described them logically.

I am not sure that how this page will be combined to the original file, but it may be good to briefly mention temperature, pressure, and the size range of the outer core (and I think these are some important constraints for the compositions)?

4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.
Yes. The writer summarized the compositions and magnetic field section well

Some suggestions are (not required):

1) It may be good to mention some representative light elements in the accretion parts.

2) It would be better to mention why scientists think oxygen, silicon, or sulfur are some possible elements, individually.

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

6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.
Yes

7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies.
Well listed.

8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?
I could not find any big grammatical or spelling problems.

9) Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?
Yes. The writer's style was clear