User talk:Astronomy Rules/Sandbox2Draft

Lead Section

The lead sentence of the article is a good first line introduction to the topic of planetary differentiation. The sentence states what planetary differentiation is and the sentence following gives examples as to where planetary differentiation occurs. The lead section is not very comprehensive and does not give much background pertaining to the rest of the article. Upon initially reading the lead section, I could not tell what would be discussed in the rest of the article. I am not sure if the lead section is an area of the article that wad focused on for this specific project since the article seemed to be particularly long. However, the lead section could use some improvement in terms of giving a general background on planetary differentiation by maybe stating its importance and the role it plays in the formation of planetary cores. There is nothing redundant in the lead section and since it is not very long there is no part of the article that it specifically focuses on over others. The lead section does a great job in defining what planetary differentiation is but needs to reflect the important information discussed in the rest of the article.

Structure

The sections are organized well and in a sensible order. The sections go from discussing heat, which gives the reader context as to how melting and separation of materials occur, to discussing physical and chemical differentiation. This is a good order because there is context given as to how planetary differentiation may occur before it is broken down and discussed more in depth in later sections. I do not think the order of the sections should be changed. The order that they are currently in gives the reader a good explanation of information that is needed in order to understand the sections that follow.

Balance of Coverage

The topics that are the most relevant and important to the concept of planetary differentiation appear to be the longest sections. This is good because it gives ample information about important topics to the reader. There is nothing off-topic in the article and all of the information seems to be relevant to the topic of planetary differentiation. The sections at the very end the article, the last two, seem to be lacking information and caused slight confusion while reading. However, if there were no sources to make the sections thorough then this is not a problem. The article is very neutral and covers all aspects of the information presented in the peer reviewed articles. There is no information that is left out or missing that may skew the informational quality of the article. The article does not do any convincing towards a particular point and simply provides information that may be used to understand a topic.

Neutral Content

As mentioned earlier, the article is neutral and does not use any biased phrases. It focuses on explaining the information given in the articles and expands the concepts for better understanding by the reader. The article does a good job of simply pointing to the facts instead of trying to make an opinion out of them. The article does not make claims or statements based on the opinions of an unnamed group of people. However, a lot of the statements in the article are missing citations. There are complete sections that do not have any citations, so it is unclear where the information has come from. This may not be the fault of the author that has made edits but the people that have made edits before. These sections should have at least 1-2 citations so that the reader knows where the information has come from. The perspective of the author however cannot be guessed from reading the article and there is no bias present.

Reliable Sources

The resources in the reference list are all peer reviewed and reputable sources. The information in the first part of the article and some other parts is cited. However, the section titled “physical differentiation” has a few subsections that have no citations at all. The citations may have been provided at the beginning of the section, but I would say it may be best to place the citations once more in the subsections, so the reader is not confused at any point as to where the information came from. All of the references appear to include information that supports what is stated in the article, however it is not clear which articles the information stems from. The information used in the article is very well explained and thoroughly gives context for the topic discussed. All of the sources in the reference list are also relevant to the topic. None of the sources stray from the topic and contribute to the understanding of planetary differentiation. The source aspect of the article is great, there just needs to be more citations in the text so that the readers may be clear on where the information they are reading comes from. Otherwise, great job and the article was very informative.--Marie Andry (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)