User:19CT87/sandbox

Willian Milnor Roberts

 * The article does a good job of sticking to the topic.
 * No overt biases are apparent in the article. The article does not make attempt to glorify or demonize any aspect and simply states the facts.
 * Because this is a biography, there are no views that can in principle be under/overrepresented. However, article needs to be fleshed out. For example, the section on his early life could use some information about his education. More discussion is needed in the "Works" and "Career" sections because they simply list bullet points with barely any explanation.
 * Of the 5 citations, 2 worked. Those that do, support the information in the article. However, the article could have utilized the sources better. For example the first source discussed Milnor Roberts education but this is not mentioned at all. Also the article needs far more citations overall and especially in the "Works" section. Information about when wife died may be wrong.
 * A few basic facts such as place of birth are cited appropriately but other important facts are missing citations. However the sources used are neutral and do not appear to be biased.
 * Some of the citations do not work; more information fleshing out Milnor Roberts early life is needed with a focus on his early education.
 * In the talk page, collaborators appear to be actively discussing how the article may be improved. In fact, some of the issues I raise here are being discussed.
 * The article is not rated very highly. The article opens with a banner stating that the article needs some help with citations. It does not appear to be part of any project.
 * In class, It has been instilled in us over the past few weeks that William Milnor Roberts was one of the great early pioneers of the field of civil engineering. However, this is impossible to grasp from this article which just lists his life as a series of poorly cited bullet points with little to no discussion about his supposedly immense contributions.

Engineering Education #North America

 * The section in the discussion about the United States that talks about chaotic dynamics is distracting. Other than that, I think the article sticks more or less to the topic. However, the errors in the Mexico section make that part difficult to read.
 * The article seems to be biased in content heavily towards the United States. That section has far more information than the others and even goes into discussing things that are not, in my opinion, immediately relevant to the topic.
 * The same amount of detail expressed in the United States section is not reflected in the other sections.
 * A number of citations do not work. Many others lead to websites and not journals or other independent sources. However, given the nature of the article, this may be permissible.
 * It is difficult to test if the citations provide credible information because many of them do not work. A lot of the information is also just stated without any citations backing it up.
 * The Mexico section is missing a lot of information. It is also riddled with grammatical errors.
 * The Talk section contains some discussion about the problems with the Mexico section but there is no current discussion about ways to fix the section.
 * The Article itself is flagged as being "unclear in citation style" so it is not rated highly; does not appear to be part of any project.
 * This article focuses on Engineering education as it relates to the actual university sequence of courses and graduate study after that. In class, the focus has been on the nature of accreditation and the expectations engineers are expected to have at each stage of education and practice not so much what the courses breakdown to.

Engineering Economics

 * The article sticks to the topic. The information contained in it was relevant, in my opinion. Although the article's structure needs some work.
 * The article presents the main discussion about engineering economics without any obvious bias to any view point.
 * In my view, among the list of "other topics" there could have been amore in depth breakdown of uncertainty as it is such a key factor in engineering economics.
 * The citations work. However, a number of them link to other wikipedia articles or other websites. These do not qualify as quality citations.
 * As stated, you can't use wikipedia to cite wikipedia. Therefore, although the information may be supported by the citations, the citations aren't valid.
 * I think the article would benefit from some detail expanding on some of the "other topics" such as uncertainty etc. The information doesn't stand out as outdated however.
 * There is talk in the article's talk page about some of the problems like the article's structure and the need for more citations and references which are relevant to improving the article.
 * The article does not have any warning banners; which is a good sign. It also doesn't appear to be a part of any projects.
 * The article does a good job of introducing the topic but could benefit from adding a breakdown of some of the key subtopics of engineering economics; like we are doing in class.