Talk:Internal structure of Earth
Add topic | Internal structure of Earth was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Crust depth?
[edit]Our table shows the crust extending for 35 km under all definitions. But our first sentence in the Crust section says 5-70 km. Can anyone who knows the nuances (I do not) make this coherent? Jmacwiki (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Geological cross section picture is obsolete
[edit]The picture showing the cross section of Earth's lithosphere is no longer accurate. A fifth later of the lithosphere has been discovered within the core. It is a solid sphere of iron geologists are calling the innermost core. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:1BA:4E9A:C03F:4C59 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source for that? Plantsurfer 00:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
is / are
[edit]The first sentence reads "The internal structure of the Earth are the layers (etc.)". Shouldn't it be "is" the layers? English isn't my first language but I know the subject of the verb "be" is structure, nor layers. Further down in the article the verb be after the same subject is indeed "is", not "are". To me there is a grammar mistake here, if I am not mistaken myself, in which case I wouldn't mind an explanation why. Onaryc2024 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be "is". I've changed it back to "is". Copernicium291 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- It should be "is" because a verb must agree with its subject. Just try searching for "subject-verb agreement" and you'll find lots of examples. That said, that first sentence is awkward, and not strictly correct because there is no reason to confine "internal structure" to layers, ignoring any lateral variations. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Hydrogen in the Earth's core
[edit]It seems very likely that large quantities of hydrogen are in the core, ranging from perhaps 9 to 45 times as much hydrogen as there is in the oceans. Good description in this CNN article: "New experiments show Earth’s core may hold vast ‘oceans’ of an essential element for life", 10 Feb 2026
Peer-reviewed paper: "Experimental quantification of hydrogen content in the Earth’s core", 10 Feb 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68821-6 Open-access. This study (and others) suggest that Earth acquired most of its water during its formation, rather than from comet impacts.
How the hydrogen is incorporated into the iron core is speculative. But it seems pretty definite that it is there. Much different ideas about the core composition than when I learned this stuff in school in the 1970s.
I'm not sure what the best way to incorporate this work into our article should be. Your thoughts are welcome. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm very impressed with the quality of this CNN science article. Bravo! Pete Tillman (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Science News article adds some interesting details: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-core-hide-oceans-hydrogen
- According to the researchers, the hydrogen in the core goes into the silicon. The core is thought to be 2 to 10 percent silicon by weight. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Geography
[edit]internal structure of the earth ~2026-49659-02 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)