User talk:RaggyMan/sandbox

Nicolew1995 Peer Review for RaggyMan:

Things that should be improved:
 * sources for the first paragraph are missing. The last sentence said [1], so you just need to fix it.
 * I feel that there needs to be a lot more sources/citations included just to see which is the information from before versus the new that you are putting in.
 * I feel that more information should be added to the concrete section. That section just ends oddly.
 * For compacted soils, the last sentence should be expanded more.
 * For plastic linings, are there more than one type of plastic that is used for the linings? If so, maybe add them.
 * Can possibly add pictures of the different types of linings so the audience can understand them better.
 * Damage to Canal Linings: need to organize in the wikipedia way, cant just list it that way.This is the biggest area of work. Needs to be organized, formatted, and made sure it flows the wikipedia language style.
 * Missing the see also, external links, sources/ notes sections

Things that were positive:
 * formatting of the top few sections
 * good picture, but source is missing??

Nicolew1995 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

= Peer Review = I'll leave some bulleted comments article below.
 * Definitely add links- there is a large amount of technical info here, and lots of links will certainly help someone who doesn't know much about the subject navigate that technical jargon.
 * Citations needed in the Types of Canal Lining section. It looks like you have citations sorted out for the Damage to Canal Lining section.
 * Probably don't need to tell you, but find a way to organize the Damage section. Consider organizing by the type/source of the damage.
 * Maybe add some specific canal projects that have experienced some of the types of damage you describe. How did the need for these solutions come about? Were there any big canal engineering disasters that can be noted? This could be a sort of History section. Gjeffrey18 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 Nicole Wojcik
The addition of the History section was good; however, you still need to add some more information to this section. The sources for the next few sections are good. However, the potential damage to canal linings section needs a lot of work. You did add a lot of information to it, however all of it needs to be formatted still. I do not know why some things in this section are bolded, but that should be fixed as well. You also need to cite all of that new information that has been added to the article. In addition, you need to add the references, external links, and see also section. A minor thing that I noticed was the your first citation at the end of your firs paragraph does not link to the page, perhaps you can fix that by adding the link to the source.

Other than those things, the major one being organization and formatting, this article is filled with good information and will be improved greatly once that is done. Nicolew1995 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 Greg Jeffrey
As stated by Nicole above, the potential damage to canal linings section needs organization. I recommended in my first review to separate by the source/type of damage, so that could be still be an option. I will also again recommend adding more links, especially in the introduction. There is a lot of information there that is not common knowledge- remember that this is not being written for engineers, but for everyone. Citations are looking better- the Plastic lining section needs them, however, as does the potential damage section. Remember to separate the citations at the bottom into their own section. Gjeffrey18 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)