User talk:Blake.CCS/sandbox

Matt Panec's Peer Review
The structure of your section is well organized between the three paragraphs. You maintain a neutral opinion which is necessary. For such a new technology you did a good job finding numbers and comparing its potential to the economics of other possibilities. My biggest complaint is the style in which the section is written; much of it seems to be written in the format of something you'd expect from a research report rather than an encyclopedia which should contain an organized, flowing list of facts. Sentences like "Lu et al. 2015 summarize the potential economic benefits of MECC use in their 2015 article in which they define the method of MECC" and "Critics of MECC discuss inefficiencies of the process, materials, and complications that may result in economic losses" don't add significant information to the article but merely are used as a transition which I don't believe in necessary in a wikipedia article. Another small point is your use of quotations; in the trainings it is instructed that quotations not be used unless quoting directly from a speech or something along those lines. Maybe look back at this training to confirm what I'm saying. I have not read any of your sources but they seem to be professional and reliable, you also sourced well throughout your section. Remember to add important links to other wikipedia articles throughout your section too. Overall, well done, just need a few corrections and it'll be wikipedia worthy. Matt Panec (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ngoc Vu's Peer Review
First, the writing is clear and well-organized.The voice of the writing is maintained to be neutral, which is very good in Wikipedia pages. In the last paragraph, you mention the inefficiency. I wonder whether you may add how high the efficiency should be in order to gain profit. You might want to add more a few research to strengthen your ideas and points. I am curious about if the government has any plans to support the technology in the economic perspectives or not. Overall, your process looks good and easy-to-follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenangocvu97 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Kamaria Kermah's peer review
This section of your article is very detailed but also concise enough to get the main points across. You present all the information in a neutral tone, your writing style is not indicative of someone who is trying to persuade the reader in any way, which is very good. The structure of this section makes it very easy to read. You start with an overview of the economic viability which is larger in scope. Then the proceeding paragraphs give a more detailed analysis which is easy to follow. It would be good if you linked key words into your article as a reference for a reader who doesn't have the scientific background to know the terminology. Everything is very well cited all your information have citations and your article looks heavily sourced which is very good. Be mindful of gaps in sources it is best to stay away from terms like 'critics say' and instead replace that with an actual company or person that has critiqued the project or its economic value. You have good transitions between sentences which makes the information easier for the reader to digest. Be mindful of your audience. This information might be a bit too technical for a reader who is looking to learn about options for climate change mitigation. You should be mindful of the terminology you use to make sure non-technical readers also get some knowledge from this article. Overall this looks like a very promising start to your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermahkam (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)