User talk:Bomeyerncsu/sandbox

Sydney's Peer Review
In general, every section (except the lead section) seems to have very minimal information, and would benefit from the addition of more explanation and detail. The article does portray a neutral tone and sounds encyclopedic for most of the article. The only line which does differs from this tone is under the related disciplines section with the sentence "If the nuclear engineer is focused on power plant design and operation, they operate as a more specialized form of power plant engineer". This sentence sounds very hypothetical and un-encyclopedic, and should be re worded. The references used throughout the article are good and credible. Every fact in the article is supported by at least one reference. I would consider adding more information about specific careers, jobs, or research that could be accomplished in this discipline. I would also check and make sure that all headings and titles only have the first word capitalized (unless referencing a proper noun). I would also be sure to introduce quotes with commas.

Shengyuan Li 's (StanleyLi95) Peer Review
Advantages: First, Bomeyer's article has a clear structure. The author includes five sections for a Wikipedia page. Second, Bomeyer has a lead section that is easy to understand. Readers can be acknowledged what the mean object is. Third, the author writes some reliable sources in the reference part. The author has sufficient citations for each section. Fourth, the tone is encyclopedic and professional for the topic, Power Plant Engineering. The author's attitude towards this article is neutral.

Disadvantages: First, the content is insufficient for the first draft. The author should include more information for each section. For example, the lead section missed background and it does not include a brief summary of the following sections. Second, the author missed "Employment" section for power plant engineering, which is necessary for readers to understand the career prospects of this major. Third, Bomeyer needs to add "research" section to tell some accomplishments of the power plant engineering.

In general, the author has a clear idea to write this Wikipedia page, but he or she needs to make more efforts to enhance the article. By following the requirements of creating a Wikipedia page, this article will become more convincing for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyLi95 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Robert's Peer Review
Your sections seem to have the workings to become something really good with some more information. Additionally, they follow up one another nicely in a logical sequential order that is easy to follow as a reader. However, it might make a little more sense to put the education section before the related disciplines section. Furthermore, in your history section, rather than suggesting readers to go elsewhere for the information, perhaps you could use the sources from those articles to rephrase the material in your own words and put it into your article. As far as your references, they all seem to come from reputable sources, but it seems that your first and fourth references are identical, so you may want to combine those. Despite needing some more information, your article has a very neutral tone and doesn't try to sway the reader to believe one thing over another; you clearly have a good idea of how to write a good, professional Wikipedia article. In terms of formatting, you should put the table on contents underneath the page title and introductory paragraph, and make sure the "d" in your "related disciplines" heading is lowercase. I also think you could spice up your article by adding some neat pictures to it relating to power plant engineering. In short, the article shows a lot of potential and with some more information and fine-tuning, could be super awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfkowach (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)