User talk:Kaiwenw

Welcome!
Hello, Kaiwenw, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Review Comments
Cfurrer (talk) 00:10, 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.

--Wendymao (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wendy's comments:

The page in general looks great. A few comments:

1) The first figure doesn't really add any relevant information - I think it could be cut. It also may be from a time in early's history that is not relevant to the inner core (if we are to believe the inner core is pretty young).

2) I like your table showing the varying ages from different studies. It might be useful to add what kind of constraints (thermo and/or paleomag) went into each study.

3) Instead of 'evidences' it should just be 'evidence' for the two sections.

4) For the Thermodynamics evidence, I would add that thermal conductivity is determined both experimentally [5], [6] & [14] and from calculations - here you could add the Pozzo et al, Nature 2012 as a reference and then have a sentence saying that the range in values for thermal conductivity give you a corresponding range in ages (add in what that actually is).

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/inner core at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)