User talk:Dadams305/sandbox

Overall, I believe that the lead section gave a lot of good information. If the lead section includes the first three paragraphs, I think that there's a broad amount of information covered. I do think that in some sections, the information shifts from one topic to another fairly quickly. For example, you mention that the transition zone in the continental crust has a depth of 20 km, which would be a good time to mention the transition zone depth in other areas. I think that some of this information is more important than others and could be condensed and clumped together for a more succinct lead section. I think that in general your paragraphs lend to a good structure. You have a good amount of information in each paragraph. In some cases I think the information could be organized better. You mention brittle strength as well as how the transition is affected by stress in all three of the first paragraphs, and I think this information would be better suited to sit altogether. Then, for example, a paragraph could be written on the conductivity and heat gradient of the transition zone. I think that this article is extremely neutral. There are no statements that put in any form of personal opinion on the subject. There are also no parts of the article, even those that are from one of the references, that make statements on the opinions of the writers of said references. After taking a look at the references included, I would say that they were used well, and were good sources of information. Both of them were peer reviewed in respected publications. Their use was sparse enough that no section of information drew from solely one source. Overall, this article had a lot of really detailed information on the transition zone, and I was able to take away a better understanding of the topic. In fact, it did a lot better than my article at explaining what the topic is actually about. Good job!