User talk:MCarrier18

Welcome!
Hello, MCarrier18, 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) 20:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review
The information added, edited and fixed in the article is relevant and further clarifies the article. I did not find any of the information distracting. The addition of the processes gives the article a good lead and explanation to what’s going on and is a good opportunity to link to other pages.

The article seems to be neutral, the claims and frames do not appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. The claims are well scientifically supported. The additions give the article a better well rounded feel.

The viewpoints are represented well. I think the biological occurrences has enough information and I think there should be more information added on difference topics within such as magnetite properties and processes

All the citations work and support the claims made in the article. The citations are consistent in the article and most of the claims are supported with more than one reference. I think the use of citations is very well shown in the article.

All added facts are reliable and appropriately referenced. The references are consistent through out the information and there is barley any information added without a reference. The only part id find more references for is magmatic processes.

The information is coming from geological sciences journals, life science journals, chemical journals and neuroscience journals which is very diverse and hits a lot of good views. The sources seem to be neutral. I don’t think there is any bias because the claims being stated are referenced with several papers and has a lot of support.

There is a reference from 1989 but other than that a lot of references are ranging from 2010 and earlier. I think the references dating range is well done and up to date. The only additions topic id add more information on is applications of magnetite such as high gradient magnetic separation using magnetite nanoparticles, ferrofluids, magnetic resonance tomography and the properties of magnetite such as thermal properties and electric properties.

I would go over the rewording, periods and spacing to make sure it is consistent throughout the article. There were a couple sentences that I found sounded a little awkward such as

“When oxidized the iron would precipitate out and accumulate at the bottom of the seafloor, as the oxygen levels continuously shift, we can see deposits interlaced layers of iron and silicate form.”

“When oxidized the iron would precipitate out and accumulate at the bottom of the seafloor, as the oxygen levels continuously shift, interlaced layers of iron and silicate deposits form.”

I just thought the “we can see” didn’t sound encyclopedic.

Overall, the article is already looking alot better and I really liked the consistent and reliable citation use and references used throughout the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaDickson (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)