User:TylerS1706./sandbox

Peer Review by TheLoyalist1 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

Adding design teams are a great addition. The amount of sources is good. Your citations are good.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I suggest that you add more about the buildings. I do not see a section in the article about the Rolla building that may be a good addition. You can also incorporate M-SAT (MST's satellite design team).

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think to improve the article, adding more additions would be more beneficial than adding to previously existing topics because the article is missing a lot of details about other stuff.

Overall your draft is good. You're heading in the right direction. TheLoyalist1 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review by Sign77 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

Everything is clearly cited and organized by topic which makes it easy to follow.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

It is very difficult to distinguish what was added by the article and what was already there. It would be better to follow the format that Dr. Sheppard followed in her sandbox example. It would allow a reviewer to see who contributed to what.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Just make sure that they are adding information with correct citations. The draft was done very well.

Responding to Peer Reviews
(the loyalist peer review)

I was planning on adding more to the buildings. The Rolla Building is in the History section of the article. One thing we can do is move it to the building section or add information to the building section. I must have missed the satellite team and will be adding information for them. I do agree that the article is missing a lot of information and we are trying to focus on adding new information instead of adding to existing information. I am glad you think the draft is good and heading in the right direction.

(Sign77 peer review)

Everything in the rough draft is new information that is not in the article. I will reorganize the information to Dr. Sheppard's so it is easier to review. I am glad you think the draft is very well and the flow was easy to follow. TylerS1706. (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Beginning of the Draft

The student design teams will be put under a subsection of the Kumar design center and the other design teams will be moved there as well. Harris Hall and Park hall will be put under campus. Jackling Gymnasium would be put under a new subsection to include former buildings on campus.

Student Design Teams:

Steel Bridge Design Team:

The team has been competing since 2002. Every year the AISC Student Steel Bridge Competition Committee releases new rules at the beginning of the school year. The teams are required to design and build a 1:10 scale steel bridge every year. Due to COVID, the competition was canceled in 2020.

The Team has been able to make it to nationals in 2003, 2004, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019. At nationals, the best the team has done is finish 12th in 2004.

BattleBot Design Team:

This design team is one of the newest design teams, as it is only started two years ago, in the Student Design Center. The team designed and built its first robot, Ankle Grinder, in 2020 and will compare for the first time on March 20th, 2021 at the Norwalk Havoc Competition in Norwalk CT.

Formula Electric:

Each year the team designs, builds, and races an electric formula style race car. The team was founded in 2012 and started to compete in 2015. In 2017, the team finished overall 4th, the best they have ever done. For the 2017-2018 season the team lost its title sponsor.

Underwater Robotics Team:

The team designs, builds, programs, and tests robots that are meant to operate underwater. They compete in the MATE ROC competition.

Baja SAE:

Each year Baja SAE design team designs, builds, and race an off-road vehicle. The team competes against other universities at international events.

Multirotor Design Team:

Every year the team competes in the International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC). Competitions repeat each year until a team completes the competition. The team designs, builds, and programs drones. The team has also partnered with the Rocket Design team to compete in the Argonia Cup.

Rocket Design Team:

The team competes in the Spaceport America Cup which is designed around the Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition (IREC). The team designs and builds a rocket each year for the competition. The team first started competing in 2015. 2019 was the first year they made two rockets.

Miner Aviation:

Every year the team designs, builds, and flies an RC plane for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Design/Build/Fly competition (AIAA DBF). The team was founded in 1999 and first competed in the 2000-2001 competition year. The team was originally named the Advanced Aero Vehicle Group and later changed their name to the Miner Aviation Student Design team during the 2016-2017 competition year. In their first year, they finished 2nd place overall in the Open Class. In the 2002-2003 competition year they finished 1st place overall in the Open Class. In the 2009-2010 competition year they started to compete in the Advanced Class.

Motorcycle Design Team:

Every two years the team designs, builds, and races a motorbike competing against universities across the world at the Motorland Aragon racetrack in Alcaniz Spain.

M-SAT:

M-SAT is the satellite research team on campus. The team was founded in the summer of 2002. The team has competed in the NS-4, NS-6, NS-7, and Nanosat-8 competitions and finished first in the Nanoset-8 competition in 2015. The team has participated in four other projects: Missouri-Rolla Sat (MR), Missouri-Rolla Second Sat (MRS), te Advanced Propulsion Experiment (APEX), and the Multi-Mode Mission (M3).

TylerS1706. (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Buildings

Harris Hall.

Harris Hall opened in 1940 after Director William Chedsey was able to secure $80,000 from the Works Progress Administration and $50,000 in state funding. Harris Hall housed the Civil degree program for nearly two decades. It now currently houses the Army ROTC Stonehenge Battalion.

Jackling Gymnasium

The Jackling Gymnasium opened in 1915 and was named after Daniel C. Jackling, a successful alumnus who previously gave $1500 to improve the athletic field that was also later named after him. The Jackling Gym was a two-story building; the first floor had a 20-foot by 60-foot swimming pool and lockers while the second floor had a 70-foot by 90-foot gymnasium. The Gallery above the gym had seats to watch basketball games and a running track. After the end of World War II, the gym also housed about two dozen student-athletes in rooms around the pool and basketball court. These students became known as the “Jackling Jocks” and students were housed here for 15 years. In August 1965, the gymnasium was to be destroyed due to safety concerns. The Jackling Gymnasium was the first building on Campus to be destroyed. The site of the former Jackling Gymnasium became what we now know as the Curtis Laws Wilson Library. The Gale Bulman Building was built in 1969 as a replacement for the Jackling Gymnasium.

Parker Hall.

The construction of Parker Hall was completed in 1912. Parker Hall was the home to the campus library until the opening of the Curtis Law Wilson Library. Parker Hall is one of three buildings (The Rolla building and Norwood Hall being the other two) that are from the school’s first 50 years. Parker Hall currently holds the Visitor Center, Admissions Office, Registrar, Student Financial Assistance, Accounting and Cashier's Office, and administrative offices.

TylerS1706. (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Missouri S&T

We want to work on this because we want to expand on the history of the school on the article, focusing on the Student Design Center and the Army ROTC.

One thing we can work on is to reorganize the article moving the student engineering projects to under the Kumar Design Center. We can add more information to the existing teams and add information on the teams that are not on the article. Since there is no section on the Army ROTC Stonehenge Battalion at S&T we can add it and provide information for it. We can also add more information about other buildings that are on campus. We can add more on what the $300 million donation will be spent on.

Sources we can use:

https://design.mst.edu/

https://armyrotc.mst.edu/

The Book Forged in Gold: Missouri S&T first 150 years of history, by Dr Larry D Gragg

The Kummer Design Center was dedicated on May 20, 2011. It was named after Fred and June Kummer who donated $1.25 million of the $2.75 million project which was funded entirely by private gifts to the university. Fred Kummer is an alumni of the University. The Kummar Design Center is a 23,000 square foot building.

On April 26th, 2019 a Mars Rover designed by S&T's Mars Rover Team broke ground on the the expansion for the Kummer Design Center. The Expansion added 8000 square feet to the Kummer design center.

Alexandra Adler article.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant and nothing distracted me. There isn't much there.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There isn't much on the article.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? only one of the links actually links to the article mentioned.
 * 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? Not all of the facts have reliable references.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? It doesn't seem to be anything out of date.
 * 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? What her actual date of birth is since it is different on different sources. If the article should be deleted since the article doesn't show the notability of the person.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a stub, Biography, Austria, Neurology, Women, Women Scientist.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is something that hasn't been talked in class.