Talk:Core–mantle differentiation
ORGANIZATION (30%)
1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing?
I think the sections adequately covered the different hypothesis for the differentiation of the core and the mantle but I was expecting some content other than that.
2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?
Yes, subheadings were used very effectively to break the article into logical chunks.
3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow?
Yes, the material was ordered very logically and was easy to follow.
CONTENT (50%) 4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.
I don’t know much about this topic, so maybe I overestimate the scientific consensus on this issue, but overall I expected more content about the general process of core-mantle differentiation other than a survey of the different competing hypotheses for the formation. Something seemed missing but I’m not sure exactly what.
5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing?
Yes, I think so. The article is well-researched. CITATIONS (10%) 6) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting. Yes, with the caveat that both “other core-mantle differentiation models” came exclusively from one source. Ideally this section would have two or more sources to draw from. 7) Were all the citations in the text listed in the References section? Note any discrepancies. Yes, as far as I could tell. GRAMMAR AND STYLE (10%) 8) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems? No easily noticeable issues or anything that interfered with my comprehension of the article. 9) Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive? Yes, although at times I thought the writing could try to be written in a style more friendly to laymen (the average reader who may not have much domain knowledge).