User:WumboWaffles/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:57, 17 February 2019

This is a user sandbox of WumboWaffles. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Get Help

Article Selection

Opportunity Cost: Opportunity cost

The articles content is relevant to the topic in question, written in a style that is congruent with Wikipedia's tone. Each claim is backed by a citation, but many of the citations are online sites. If more books were used the citations would be even more reliable than they already are.

Engineering economics (civil engineering): Engineering economics (civil engineering)

The articles content is relevant to the topic with information and citations that are up-to date and written in a way where readers may easily cross-reference material and is written in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's mission to stay neutral.

Environmental Engineering: Environmental engineering

The article's content is relevant to the topic, but the information presented is a very limited view of the complexities of environmental engineering. The article is written neutrally with reliable scientific journals and papers used as citations. This article simply writes an outline of what a complete article would be without filling in the information.

WEEK 3 Adding Citations Bibliography

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?D422-63(2007)e2

Sieve analysis may be conducted using two different standards, one specific to coarse and fine aggregate and the other specific to soil particle size. Referencing ASTM D 422 highlights a complete understanding on how to conduct this experiment.

Article Evaluation

HENRY ROE CAMPBELL

CONTENT EVALUATION Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything was on topic and nothing distracted me.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? References are made to out-of-date wiki pages of Samuel W. Mifflin , Norristown & Valley Railroad , West Philadelphia Railroad, Joseph Harrison Jr., Beaver Meadow railroad, Eastwick and Harrison, Hercules (locomotive), and Paulsen Spence.

What else could be improved? Adding more about the history of the late life of Mr. Campbell would help improve the page.

Time Value of Money

TALK PAGE EVALUATION ~ For Class Assignment What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations are mostly about the overall strength of the article and how the article can be augmented in the future. Considering it is rated as B-class shows that the article could use some fine-tuning. WumboWaffles (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ====== '''''Opportunity Cost:''''' [[Opportunity cost]] ======
-* Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is it written neutrally? Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?
+*The articles content is relevant to the topic in question, written in a style that is congruent with Wikipedia's tone. Each claim is backed by a citation, but many of the citations are online sites. If more books were used the citations would be even more reliable than they already are.
 ====== '''''Engineering economics (civil engineering):''''' [[Engineering economics (civil engineering)]] ======
+*The articles content is relevant to the topic with information and citations that are up-to date and written in a way where readers may easily cross-reference material and is written in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's mission to stay neutral.
-* Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is it written neutrally? Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?
 ====== '''''Environmental Engineering:''''' [[Environmental engineering]] ======
-* Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is it written neutrally? Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?
+*The article's content is relevant to the topic, but the information presented is a very limited view of the complexities of environmental engineering. The article is written neutrally with reliable scientific journals and papers used as citations. This article simply writes an outline of what a complete article would be without filling in the information.
 <br />