User talk:N Y T 22/sandbox

Derek's Suggestions
Overall the article is well written and it is very concise. My suggestions for improvement are as follows:


 * You do not have a reference list for me to review and none of your claims have citations. You may want to add one.
 * Are any of the testing methods you mention specific to Carbon Fiber or are they general methods for testing? Are there any testing methods specific to carbon fiber alone? A little clarification would be good.

Derek Kohnle (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review
The article is a nice expansion of the article on live wikipedia. Here are some suggestions for improvement so it can go live soon.

Starting section and table of contents:
 * The first sentence "Carbon fiber testing is a material science test involving the testing of various components containing carbon fiber materials." --> This says that "carbon fiber testing" is a "test" ... but it's not, it's a grouping of tests, or a collection of possible tests to characterize the properties of carbon fiber composites. I would change this phrase.
 * Is the sentence "Particularly safety-critical carbon fiber parts, such as structural parts in machines, vehicles, aircraft or architectural elements are subject to testing." necessary? Also, it's a bit awkward to read, perhaps there's a re-write to do if you were to decide to keep it.

Introduction section:
 * It was a bit hard for me to identify what the "three main disciplines for material testing", since they were spread out. Maybe by saying "First", "second", and "third" or "finally", that would help me as a reader identify the three types.
 * instead of saying "three main disciplines", I might use the word "categories" instead.
 * I don't know if it's useful to list the examples of the methods in the intro, since you'll have the test methods in the the following section.
 * you link to NDT and to SHM, but not to destructive testing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_testing I recommend you link to this for that section to be fair to all three categories

Note about flow: Your intro says there are three major types of testing. But then you lump all of them together into one section on "Testing methods". Why not break them into three sections on Destructive, Non-Destructive, and SHM? I think that would be a much better way to organize, and to build on the argument you've made in the intro section.

Testing methods section:
 * This sentence: "Carbon fiber reinforced plastic and reinforced polymers are gaining importance as light-weight material." It seems too general for the testing methods section, and if it's an intro section sentence, you'd need to incorporate it up there.  Or just delete.
 * the next sentence is not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment with no verb
 * reorganize this section according to my note on flow above
 * in general, you don't want the section to just be a long list of methods. Instead, find some sub-group organization that you can help the reader understand the structure to everything.

Types of Defects:
 * Is there a reason that this is coming after the methods? Maybe it's important to first say that the purposes of testing is to characterize the properties, and to identify defects. Then you could have the defects up front, and then you'd have the methods to find these defects come afterward?
 * K.D. Potter at University of Bristol has done some great work with classifications of composite defects ... you might benefit from citing one or more of his works. It would also help flesh out the defects list you have.
 * You start putting in methods at the end of the defects section, so you're mixing the purposes of your two organized sections. I recommend you don't do that.

Note on citations: I read your note, but you can include the citations using the citation tool now, rather than waiting for the end. You also need many more citations based on the number of methods that you're mentioning here. That, or you link much more to the rest of wikipedia

UML MECH2960 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Nikki Suggestions
-Add in text citations -More detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannikki29 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review #2
I think you're ready to upload to wikipedia! I'm ready to see the reception that the live content gets from the community.

A few minor suggested changes:
 * For the destructive testing, you only talk about fatigue testing, is this the only test that is specific to c-fiber? If you know of any others, even if just to list in a sentence, might be useful.
 * In the NDT section, you still have (NDT.org) listed in two places. These either need to be proper citations, or removed.
 * Your NDT paragraph could possibly use an intro sentence that lists the ones you're going to cover in that paragraph.

UML MECH2960 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)