User:Bthapacr7/sandbox

William Milnor Roberts' article

 * Everything on the article is relevant to the topic
 * The article is neutral, there are no views that are underrepresented or overrepresented and the article is not biased towards any opinion.
 * All the links in the references work and the sources are all neutral.
 * The talk page is very organized and all the users have provided useful insights in improving the particle
 * The William Milnor Roberts article describes the chronicles of Roberts' work and his career. However, the article has very little amount of personal information on Roberts. Also, no descriptions of Roberts' work is provided as they are simply listed.

Gerald W. Smith

 * Not everything in the article is relevant to the topic at hand. (For example: Smith living next to John Vincent is irrelevant)
 * The article is completely neutral and no view is over or underrepresented towards any opinion.
 * All claims have been referenced
 * About four users have provided valuable questions and insights with proper discussion and suggestions.
 * This article doesn't have any sections and thus seems a bit disorganized.

American Society of Civil Engineers' article

 * Everything on the article supports to provide an overview of the ASCE as an organization. In fact the subheadings such as "Women in Civil Engineering", and "Criticism and historical controversies" give a detailed description of this organization.
 * The article is fact based, unbiased and and no views have been underrepresented or overrepresented.
 * Every claim in the article has been properly referenced. It is infact very thoroughly researched and most of the citations and links do work and provide enough evidences to the claims in the article
 * The talk page has been systematically formatted with headings and sub-headings with each user describing what they did and why they did it.
 * This article in contrast to other Engineering articles provides us with a lot of information. Similarly, this article also possess a lot of history. The article is very comprehensive as it has detailed information on history, nomenclature, foundations and different constituents of the organization. However, the article does miss out on detailing the current status of the organization.

Engineering Economics' article

 * I believe not everything on this article is relevant to the topic. This article is more Economics of Engineering than Engineering Economics as it fails to describe the constituents and the theories behind Engineering economics.
 * The article is unbiased and neutral and all the claims have been properly referenced.
 * The talk page is comparatively quieter with fewer users indicating that the article has still a long way to go
 * This article is very brief and thus doesn't help to study about the topic in hand in detail. The article provides a very vague definition of the term "Engineering Economics". Furthermore, the article doesn't go in to depth about the need, importance, constituents and history of Engineering Economics. Some of the links in the references also do not work

Gerald W. Smith and Milnor Roberts aritcles
Consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these): Ans: Yes, everything in both articles are relevant and nothing is really distracting as all the information help us to know more about these great engineer's contributions. Ans: These articles are neutral and no claims, or frames have been biased. They are fact based and have been properly referenced. Ans:No viewpoints have been overrepresented or underrepresented. Ans: A few links in the William Milnor Roberts' article do not seem to work, all links seem to be working for Gerald W. Smith's article. The sources do support the claims in the article. Ans: Every fact in the articles haven't been referenced. The information comes mainly from information online, however these sources are neutral. Ans: No information is out of date, however I would add more information on the work and contributions of Gerald W. Smith. Ans: There are comments on the talk page for Smith's articles that mainly talk about the lack of information on the articles, the Roberts article does have a lot of recommendations which have been taken in to account. The Roberts article is a part of WikiProject Pennsylvannia, WikiProject Philidelphia, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Trains. The smith article has none and no ratings are shown on the articles. The wikipedia article went more in to depth about the contributions and life of these individuals rather than in class where we mainly focused on their contributions. Recommended citation has been left on Gerald W. Smith's article. The edits have been made on the article
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Choose at least citation relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your recommended citation and edit material on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~.
 * Add 1-2 sentences to the same article, and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training and documented on the talk page. Document the edit with a reference to the talk page.

First Draft on Improving an article
Creating a new section of an article? Improving an existing article? The article introduces Wellington as a person who wrote a certain book, I believe that the introduction should focus more on his roles and positions. In contrast to the Campbell article, the Wellington article gives only few line descriptions of Wellington's works. Separate sub headings of Wellington's main achievements and works need to be created to talk more about his achievements. The article does underline the importance of Wellington's achievements on the modern understanding of projects, however, I do think that a detailed description of his theories and works will do his achievements justice. I do believe there needs to be more information for it to pass as a standard lead article. I would pick Cost accounting as a article on EngEcon that should reflect Wellington's contributions. It doesn't mention of Wellington and therefore I do recommend using his contributions to better understand the concepts of Engineering economics.
 * Write an outline of that topic in the form of a standard Wikipedia article's "lead section." Write it in your sandbox.
 * A "lead" section is not a traditional introduction. It should summarize, very briefly, what the rest of the article will say in detail. The first paragraph should include important, broad facts about the subject.
 * Read these two articles ... first, Henry Roe Campbell and then, Arthur Mellen Wellington ...
 * See Editing Wikipedia page 9 for more information on wiki-style editing dos and don'ts.
 * Identify what's missing from the current form of the Wellington article.
 * Given the class discussion about Wellington's role in developing the concept of engineering economy, does this article reflect Wellington's importance?... does it meet the standard for a lead article?...
 * Read the topic materials in Wikipedia listed above from Week 2. Pick a relevant article on EngEcon that in your opinion should reflect Wellington's contributions. Does it?... What would you recommend changing?...

Teamwork exercise:
 * Make notes for improvement on your user page ...  Separately analyze and discuss Wellington and your subject article from Week 2. What would you improve? .. any concepts or draft material?
 * Develop an informal team project.
 * The scope of the assignment is as follows:
 * Setup a new section (one and only one) on the Wellington Talk page.
 * Each class member will add a paragraph using the ":" to start and sign with "~" addressing the question. Build on other comments or offer new lines of thought ... be creative but must have the engineering focus.


 * Keep reading your sources, too, as you prepare to write the body of a civil engineering article.

Resources: Editing Wikipedia pages 7–9

Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia
What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"? NPV or "No original research" NOR

Neutrality is a very important tool to obtain unfiltered, unbiased and factual information about a topic Wikipedia is a source that can be easily tempered with, therefore all the information on a wikipedia article need to be examined. In a scientific profession like Civil Engineering, there is an even greater need to have proper factual information. These sources include blogs, Personal Journals, Social media posts, opinionated posts etc. Relying on this sources might lead to falsifying of information. we are not engineers,
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? Particularly for civil engineering data, information or knowledge given NPV or NOR.
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?

If we are not engineers
If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, I believe we would have much more information on topics. We would also have very varying opinions because of different generations of contributors. Only a handful of people even now have access to the internet, which will only increase overtime. The content is likely to be examined and extended more. 100 years from now, new progress and new findings will make some of the information obsolete.
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

As aspiring Civil Engineers
If Civil Engineering topics were written 100 years ago, we would have much more data and information on the procedures and technology of that era. During the times of Campbell, Haydon and Roberts, they didn't have access to internet or other modern equipments that we take as granted. Hence, if Wellington had written about railroad economy then, we would have information on how he innovated new ways to go about doing projects. We would have better understanding of his theories and detailed understandings of his methods. Even 100 years from now, the wiki platform would still remain relevant because as more and more people have access to wikipedia, it will act as a information database. Engineering students will have easy access to information of the past due to this platform.
 * Now we are answering this as aspiring Civil Engineers. We must also face the question of technology and the role it played in the development of civil infrastructure.
 * If Wikipedia and civil engineering topics were being written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? How would Wellington have written about railroad economy? How would Campbell? John Haydon? Milnor Roberts? What about 100 years from now? What would CE knowledge look like 100 years from now?  Would a wiki platform remain relevant?

Make a new section on your user page
 * One subheading to answer the first question ...
 * Second subheading to answer the second question ...
 * Organize the response in each section any way you wish ...
 * The audience for the first question is a general reader with some exposure to technology while the audience for the second question is practicing civil engineers with fifteen years of experience.