User talk:Juangui10arias/sandbox

Santiago's Peer Review of your Draft
Hello, Juan. As part of our project, I have decided to peer review your draft. I based my review on the questions provided in the peer review checklist.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I believe the sections should be organized a bit differently. History and History of Manufacturing Engineering should be combined in one, since manufacturing engineering is part of industrial engineering. You could divide the History section into three different parts, each one referring to the areas of I&P Engineering that you mention at the beginning: Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, and Management Science. The information about manufacturing engineering should be included under Industrial Engineering. Also, that section seems to be rather long (it's the history of one aspect of one of the areas of I&P Engineering). The Sub-disciplines section also distracted me because the subdisciplines did not seem to be organized in any particular way. I think this article could benefit greatly if it were organized based on the three main areas of I&P Engineering, with the subdisciplines classified according to those categories. For example, when presenting an overview of Mechanical Engineering, you could talk about Mechanics. There were also some issues with the subtitles: Some of them have the word "[edit]" right next to them as belonging to the subtitle itself. This should be edited as to present the article in a more elegant way.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are certain sections of the article that are not neutral. For example, those referring to employment and education. They seem to be based solely on the context of the United States, so it is not very useful information for people from other English-speaking countries (or not) who might be using Wikipedia in English to learn about I&P Engineering. I think it would be a good idea to include "United States" as subtitle in those two sections, and also talk about other countries under different subtitles. This could help expand your draft quite a bit.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As I mentioned above, the draft seems to be focused on an American audience, even though Wikipedia is a website used all throughout the world. I would suggest, as I said, including information about employment and curricula in other countries.


 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Your sources all seem to be working. However, you only cite two sources, which is not a lot (and supports the idea that some points of view might be underrepresented in the article). I would suggest finding information in other sources and including it. Also, "References" should be its own independent section in an article (right now, they are all under the Career Options/Job Profiles section). In addition, I would suggest using named references to avoid citing the same article twice. In your draft, reference 1 and 2 are the same article. For repeated citations, you can edit the reference tag the way it is explained here.


 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The first reference seems to be coming from the Wikipedia article about I&P Engineering. The second reference comes from careers360.com, which seems to be a pretty neutral website. As I said before, a greater variety of sources is needed for the information to be more credible. There are several sections of the draft (like History and Modern Tools) which have no references whatsoever, so there is no way for the reader to verify whether the information is factual or accurate.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? Additions have been suggested above. All the information seemed to be up-to-date.

I hope this is helpful. -- Svolont331 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)