User:Kjt291/sandbox

Being bold is important on Wikipedia 

Article Evaluation
"Arthur M. Wellington"


 * The first paragraph provides a good introduction
 * The citations do not help support some claims. For example, under Early Life and Works, citation number 4 is placed after "In 1878" talking about when Arthur got married with a source referencing a book called "Engineering Economy A Historical Perspective"
 * Third sentence under "Early Life and Works" should be revised
 * Some references do not exist yet. For example, "Toledo and Canada Southern Railway"
 * Wellington's death is listed under Surveyor and locating engineer, should probably be in a different section

The article did a good job at staying neutral and not show bias. However, I believe the article needs to be revised in terms of content and grammar. For example, under "Surveyor and Locating Engineer" the death of Arthur Wellington is discuss, which belongs in a different section. In terms of grammar the article needs to be revised, specifically the third sentence under "Early Life and Works". Citations should also be checked, specifically number 4 under "Early Life and Works" since the reference doesn't apply to Wellington getting married.

"Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge"
 * First sentence under "Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1918) is not complete
 * There are many grammar mistakes throughout the article
 * I believe under the title "ASCE Education Conferences (1960-1995) there is a mistake in the 4th sentence. Instead of "A 9168 joint study between ASCE..." the sentence should read "A 1968 joint study between ASCE..."
 * Under "Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge I believe the second sentence should say "this body of professional knowledge had three components.." since it only mentions three components but it says currently "this body of professional knowledge had four components..."

The article did seem neutral about the topic it covered. For the most part the citations did work and the links to other articles were correct. In terms of content I believe the article was relevant to the title and did a good job explaining in chronological order the progress of the CEBoK

"Engineering Economics"


 * The first sentence and second sentence need to be revised
 * The links redirected me to the appropriate wiki page
 * There should be more headings added from the history, types, classification, etc... to add a better understanding of engineering economics

Overall the article was relevant to the topic. The links took me to the appropriate pages and were relevant. However, maybe more content could be added in order to cover more about engineering economics. I don't think the article has enough information to truly cover "Engineering Economics"