User:Beski001/sandbox

Is this ok?

I just wanted to test out source editing.

Article evaluation
1) I reviewed the article on the biography of John Alexander Low Waddell.

These were my observations:

-The first thing I noticed is that there were a lot of unnecessary words that were hyperlinked like Canada, China, Mexico.

-There were links to about three pages that had no content in it.

-There was no smooth transition between some paragraphs. Beski001 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

2) My review on the Civil Engineering topic on the Body of Knowledge article.

These were my observations:

- This article was quite short, so not too much can be inferred from it. By saying that, it is difficult to determine if the article was neutral or biased, or if some information was over represented or under represented. However it can be seen that the article did present the opinion of Waite's pragmatic view into the definition of BoK.

- In terms of structure, the article is quite disorderly. two of the in-text citations were not done properly and as such caused a huge confusion as to whether the article was listing points or if it was simply citing another article. There is also really no structure to the article as it seems disorderly.

- All the links in the references work, but the last reference does not seem to go towards supporting any claim that the Body of Knowledge makes. There is also a hyperlink that still has no content in it yet, so it should be removed or content should be added to it.

- The references were attained from reliable sources except one of the sources which was attained from a research gate. The other verifiable sources included journals and published books. The references are not necessarily out of date unless one views 2004 as out of date.

- On the talk page there was a disagreement about a statement that was made without citation, and the statement turned out to be wrong so the editor had to make the change. There was also talk about changing the format in which it was written.

- I do not think the article is rated because of how poorly it was written. I also do not think it is part of any wiki projects as it article was created a long time ago.

3) My review of the Civil Engineering topic on Capital Budgeting.

These are my observations:

- The first and major distraction I had with this article was that there is a list in the summary. I find that list to be confusing with the contents list. I feel like the list could have been omitted from the summary and put into a section of the table of contents. Also the mention of "investment appraisal" without hyperlinking it was also an issue I found.

- Some parts of the article were over-represented while some had very little information. For example the "funding sources" tab was very short compared to the rest and had no citations.

- There are only two citations to this article which is definitely not enough as some parts of the article do not have references. However, the links work and they go towards supporting the article. This is an old article and as such all the references are dated back to the early 2000's.

- On the talk page, the majority of the comments are mostly about questions on more clarity on the topics presented in the article.

- This topic had not yet been covered in class at the time of this review.