User talk:Meghnar11/sandbox

Peer Review

Everything is relevant and neutral. No viewpoints were over/underrepresented. I would recommend double checking citations and links, since in some sections (economics) enhanced oil recovery didn't have a link and it could be of good use. Good references and sources; very insightful and encyclopedic information.

Monica.rdz.ma (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)User: Monica.rdz.ma

Peer Review

I agree with Monica's review, that the content you have added is neutral and factual. However, if you could add the citations that support your new pages to the small descriptive paragraphs you are planning to add to the main CCS page, that would help readers to identify easily the sources for which you based the content on. Also, including the location of the CCS project and a link to the location (if possible) and hyperlinking the paragraphs with the main pages (for example, adding "Main Article: Petra Nova" to the paragraph of Petra Nova in the CCS page) would help users navigate the content better. Good Work!

Swifter78neo (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think that you are providing a solid, comprehensive addition of CCS projects to the main page. Is there any reason why you are choosing to not add info about the White Rose project to the main CCS page as well? I could see the reason being that the project has been stalled, but I still think it could be important to be able to navigate to your new White Rose page from the main page. Otherwise, this is very solid work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwilson95 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)