User talk:Marie Andry/sandboxdraftyourarticle

Marcus's Peer Review

Lead Section: I think the lead section gives me a pretty good understanding of the basics of what magma oceans are. The phrasing of the first sentence might be able to be changed to be read and understood easier and make it a more defining intro sentence. The second sentence about the radioactive decay definitely seems important but I think it is out of place, maybe it would be better placed later in the lead section or in the body paragraphs? In the last sentence of the lead section, you include the word “clement” that I had to google to know what it means so a more commonly known word might work better or if you could link it to its definition or something. The inclusion of the third sentence in this section is really informative and shows the relevance of the topic to other things. I would say your dispersion of information in the lead section is excellent and gives a good overall view.

Structure: The structure and the way you split the information into sections is very strong. Everything seems to be in the right place and each section seems important and distinct from the others. My only note regarding this would be to maybe place the section about Earth’s magma ocean above the lunar one because it feels more important as it is our planet.

Balance of Coverage: All of the sections within your article seem necessary and all information is on topic. For the most part, the balance between the perspectives presented in the research and your content is very good. The section for the Earth’s magma ocean is kinda short compared to the other sections and maybe you could balance the article even more if you added more information from your sources into that section.

Neutral Content: Your article is incredibly neutral and I cannot detect any bias within it. I could not guess your personal perspective on the topic based on the article. You do not make any claims on behalf of others or give information without a source. There are also no instances of using words that give negative or positive connotations to information, it feels distinctly scientific and factual. Good job!

Sources: The sources you used seem to be formatted correctly and they all seem reliable and relevant to your topic. Your sources are peer-reviewed and from respected scientific journals and publishings which is good. My only note regarding sources is their utilization within the article. You seem to use your first source a lot more than the other sources listed which can make your article seem unbalanced. I would suggest finding a way to incorporate more information from your other sources into different parts of the article. It is pretty noticeable when reading that there is a “[1]” after almost every sentence especially in your section about the heat sources.

Overall, super good job. This article is interesting :) Xkurtma (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)