User:Camstr32/Ludwig prandtl/TechnoChemist Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Srlg36 and Camstr32


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Camstr32/Ludwig prandtl
 * User:Srlg36/Ludwig prandtl
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Ludwig Prandtl

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Camstr32The addition about the addition about the circulation of propellers sounds good and feels unbiased, however, it feels out of place where it is in the article. It might sound better if it was talked about in chronological order, or in a different part of the section, as it is currently in-between two paragraphs about aircrafts. It is also important to cite your sources, as there are currently no citations in the two paragraphs.

I've decided it would be best to remove the paragraph on propeller circulation since it is off topic from what Prandtl accomplished. I added citations and references.

The paragraph about skin friction seems a bit disjointed, but overall still good. It might be the same issue with the above paragraphs where they just need to be inserted in different place in the article. The same is true for the paragraph below it. Also needs citations.

I have edited the paragraphs to better connect them.

Srlg36

Your additions seem useful and seem to be slotted into a good place if the plan is to put them after the copied portion of the article that's in your sandbox. It doesn't sound biased and has a few sources decently. It may need a few more sources just to back up a bit of the information. It seems to add in details that otherwise would have been overlooked for seeming unimportant, but reading them shows their significance.

The ideas you have at the bottom of your sandbox show that you don't have a need for content and definitely have enough to further flesh out this article, but like you say in the sandbox sources are necessary for them. It's just important to make sure the additions flow well with the whole article.

In total

The article that you have chosen seems well fleshed out compared to the one I'm working on, but you still seem to have pertinent information to add, and that's great. It's just important to make sure that your additions flow well and are properly cited.