User talk:Jsobe/sandbox

Jsobe's peer review
This article summarized the discovery of inner core super-rotation and several pieces of evidence regarding the rotation speed and the rotation direction. The article fitted well into the wiki page “Inner core” and expanded short paragraph in the section “Dynamics”.

The article started with an introduction section but not a lead. This section states clearly how inner core super-rotation was discovered and the current stage of researches on inner core super-rotation. Although the author drafted a well-organized subsection on the evidence for inner core super-rotation, the gravitational and geomagnetic implications are not presented with adequate details. It would be more balanced if the last sentence of the article can be expanded into a subsection on the gravitational and geomagnetic implications or the impacts on the core dynamics.

The author forgot to add an image in the .docx or .pdf version. The image attached to the talk page is possible but not ideal. The image shows the layers of the Earth including the inner core and outer core. However, it ignored the inner core rotation or relative motion to the outer core, which may help the reader understand the topic.

At the end of the file, links to the sources are listed which is equivalent to a reference section. Most of the sources are fairly complete and easy to track except one(source 4). They come from reliable publications with peer review. One minor improvement would be to rewrite them into the standard format of Wikipedia. Another thing to note is that the first and second sentence of paragraph two is not clearly linked with any citation.

Overall, the article is presented in a neutral tone and logical order which is easy to follow for encyclopedia audiences. The author used subheadings to clarify subsections. Also, the article is well written with clear language and grammar. The sentences are linked closely to each other.

Kaiwenw (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Kaiwen Wang

Response to peer review
Thank you for the feedback. I agree with almost all of your comments and will edit the article accordingly. At this point, it looks like my writing would be best as an addition to the article about the inner core. However, I think that with another section or two it could be a stand-alone article. Also, there should definitely be a lead at the beginning of the introduction (like you mentioned). As for the links and image, I will update them into the correct format. I plan to email the author of a Nature article that has an image that fits better than the current one. I'm not sure which first and the last sentence you are referring to, but I will make sure that all of my sentences have proper citations. Jsobe (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks again for the comments

Additional Comments After Additional Editing
I have added more to make the piece more fit to be a stand-alone article. At this point, I believe it is in between a stand-alone and an addition to the inner core article. Additionally, I added the source that I believe you were referring to before. I still plan to add more to the final section about the cause of inner core rotation to better explain why rotation occurs. This will include information about the gravity of geodynamo of Earth. I also left out a description of doublets which should be added by end of tonight. Information about doublets will be added to the evidence section and skepticism section. As I added more information, I think that the order became more confusing, although I am not sure what a good fix for this would be.

As for the images, it is taking me longer than expected to edit the images I was planning on inserting. The two images better fit than the image that was originally posted and should provide a visualization of the rotation and the drift. I inserted source number four so that the link works.

Lastly, I cleaned my Sandbox so that only the article draft is now in it. Thanks again!

Jsobe (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Second review
I agree that the page now looks more like a stand-alone article. The page is more complete with additional information compared with the first draft. The structure is clear. The citations are also easy to track. Other than missing images, the article looks great to me overall.

Some minor changes you might consider:
 * 1) Try to link more to the related articles by adding hyperlinks on some technical terms, like what you did to the link 'inner core'.
 * 2) The last sentence of the 'Introduction' section mentioned Song and Richard’s theory but the summary of this theory was in the second section. It might be better to just say 'the existence of inner core super-rotation' or to add a couple of words about Song and Richard’s theory before you say it is validated.
 * 3) The last sentence of the 'Cause of Super Rotation section' seems to be unfinished.
 * 4) A typo in the sentence '...the rotation of the inner core could by linked to the cycling...'. I guess 'by' should be changed to 'be'.
 * 5) Citation 7, 10, and 13 are all links to papers. I think it would be clearer to cite the paper rather than to give the link.

Kaiwenw (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)