Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/origin-of-gold-found-in-rare-neutron-star-collisions/2013/07/17/a158bd46-eef2-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html?hpid=z3
The whole article was about a theory that explained the origin of the gold. For a long time, scientists assumed that heavy metals such as gold, platinum, lead and uranium originated from supernova explosions. However, new evidences from the observations made in June led the scientists to think otherwise. Now, scientists believe that these metals originated from the collisions of neutron stars.
There were some interesting facts about the neuron stars that I was shocked to read about. A teaspoon full of a neutron star weighs 5 billion tons in earth. Also, a neutron star usually is a diameter of Washington, but contains more mass than our Sun. These two facts about how heavy the neutron stars are definitely increased my interest in learning about neutron stars.
This article was very interesting to read. It had several pictures to help understand the concept of the new theory and quotes from scientists made the new theory seem more valid. I liked how the author presented the idea and explained any terms that seemed to be uncommon. I also liked its title. It first captivated my sight when the word "gold" appeared. And after reading the rest of the title, I was more interested in reading it. So I praise the author's choice of title. The structure of the article was, in my opinion, not very good though. I think the first few paragraphs explaining the history and presenting the idea were good, but the last few paragraphs were unnecessary and unrelated to the topic.
First of all, I'd like to tell you that you chose a good article. Secondly, however, I'd like to ask you some questions. What do you mean by "...a neutron star is a diameter of Washington"? I thought diameters were only correlated with circles.I also would like to say how most of your article was a summary. I think you're able to do a LOT better with analysis and commentary. Overall, you clearly showed your point of view and you did a good job in showing it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Matthew that this was a very interesting article. I find many facts about neutron stars very astonishing. Overall, your commentary was well-written. I clearly see what you think of the article and the topic. The only thing you can improve on is avoiding repetition; your use of words containing the word "interest" was a bit repetitive. However, as I said before, you wrote your commentary pretty well.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Matthew's comment, I do not have problem understanding what you mean by "...a neutron star is a diameter of Washington." A neutron star is a spherical object, and spheres also have diameters because they are round, like circles. The only difference between a sphere and a circle is that a sphere is three-dimensional and has volume while a circle is two-dimensional and has no volume.
This article is very interesting but you did a little too much summarizing. The third paragraph with your commentary is good on terms of you explaining the structure of the article but I would have liked to see you explain more about what you think about the article and your opinion on how gold was found. Otherwise, you did a good job of putting this article together and I enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDelete