User talk:Ejackson63EAS/sandbox

Peer Review (completed by Miranda Leggett)
The lead section of the article in the Sandbox contains a succinct overview and introduction of the article’s topic. The student correctly cited the source attached to the lead section. One possible changes could occur with this lead section; because of the way the word “earth” is used, it needs to be capitalized. Therefore, the new sentence would read “...between the Earth’s crust and mantle.” The lead section could also contain a sentence or two on the different sub-sections of the article (Discovery and Seismological Data). In the published article, the second sentence of the section on the history of the discovery of the Moho discontinuity is too long. It is grammatically sound, however, I had to read it a couple of times in order to understand all of the information. Consider splitting this sentence into two. The history of discovery and scientific explanation introduction sections are well-balanced.

The student’s article’s structure is clear and logical. I can clearly see the different sections of information. The order of the article also makes sense. Starting with Discovery and then moving into the Information is the most logical way to explain this topic to someone who doesn’t know a lot about Earth structure. In the published article, one suggestion is to switch the order of the sections; put the history first and the scientific information second as that would reflect the way in which the published lead section is organized. Both the student’s article and the published article contain more information about the discovery and history of the Moho than information about what the discontinuity actually is. The student should consider adding more information (if there is any to add) about the Moho discontinuity as a scientific phenomena. However, most of the sources are about the history and scientific importance of the discovery of the Moho, so it makes sense that the article is balanced in this way.

The information added by the student author has a neutral tone, however, the article’s “History and Exploration” section has several phrases that show bias. One such phrase is “an integral part.” The student author should consider changing the wording of the published article in order to eliminate this biased language.

The citations and sources used by the student are reliable and are used properly in their article. The citations have been inserted in the correct locations and are appropriate for the sentences that precede them. The published article, however, contains several phrases that do not include citations. These phrases should be removed or altered by the student author so that they correspond to reliable information. Mleggett8 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Mleggett8