User talk:Erikp1999/sandbox

Well done, it's easy to read, an article like what I've come to expect from Wikipedia. I noticed a little bit of emptiness caused by the addition of images and other graphics, what are you going to fill it up with? Also, there's a tad bit of bias in there, for example, use of the word perfect in the top piece. Probably should change that to "well dsuited" or something, since the difference between more than adequate function and perfection is really subjective in this case. Other than that, really well organized.

Another Peer Review (Oct 24)

The author added more information into the summary and added a 'similar launches' section (I compared this to the existing article). What does the article do well?

- The 'similar launches' section is well-written. It gives a connection to the other CubeSat missions in the past, which lets the users explore more ideas.

- The explanation of CubeSat, summarized from the main article.

What questions are remaining after reading the author's work?

- There can be more topic lists in the article. I would believe that the readers would be interested in the details of the designs and features. An example of the detailed one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Advanced_Nanospace_eXperiment_Program. I understand that the information might be a bit hard to find, since the MarCo is not launched yet.

- It is good to give a detail on what the test failure is.

What changes would you suggest overall?

- None. Keep doing good work and adding more.

Most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution:

- Find more information/sources

Reviewer: Junior (Mathophile (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC))

I think you did a great job with this article. The first thing that I noticed was it was very well organized. The titles of all the different sections are clear and make sense. The introduction paragraph explaining Mars Cube One was also very concise but still descriptive, which was a great way to start the wiki article. What questions are remaining after reading the author's work? - What InSight instrument failed to postpone the the launch of the Mars Cube One mission, and why did it get postponed? - I would further explain what the "communications relay system" means under the Objectives tab.

What changes would you suggest overall? - I would just slightly change the sentence structure in some areas to make it more clearer. I would also just add more content, but you still have plenty of time for that since this is just a draft.

Most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution: -Again, just add more information and make sure your transitions between sections are clear and make sense. Rima Rebei

This is a very good start--it is well organized so far and you have added a few useful sources, which is helpful. I think that you mentioned that your group members have additional source material, etc., so those additions will further enhance the article's reference list (and content). There is still room here for expansion--particularly in terms of the technical specifications of the communication relay system as well as an overview of research projects associated with MCO. Are there any schematic images in Wikimedia Commons that you can include as well? Amyc29 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)