User talk:Sjo uml/sandbox

Alex's Peer Review
DisposableHero19 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The information is relevant and useful.
 * More formatting is needed in the history section.
 * The article is neutral.
 * Citations need to be added throughout the article.
 * References need to be added throughout the article.
 * The source used seems to be reliable.
 * Overall, good information and good start. Just needs to be better organized and formatted.
 * Thank you for the comment. I will definitely be adding references and sources. I agree about the formatting and organization. I will work on that once I get all the information in the sandbox.

Sjo uml (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review
You have obviously done a lot of reading and editing to expand the article. Below are some considerations you can make in further refining the article as you approach it's public debut!

History section:
 * Your first paragraph of this section is heavily about reinforcements in general that have been used in concrete rather than about textile reinforcements. Maybe that information -- about straw, steel, asbestos, and glass or plastic fibers -- would best be put into a concrete article or a reinforcement of concrete article. I would say this article is about "textile-reinforced concrete" and should stay focused on that
 * For the "first patents" subsection, you say "The first Patents were awarded to Sachsisches Textiforschung-sinstitut e.V. STFI, for a reinforced concrete design that did not include steel for transportation related safety items." Instead of ending the sentence about what was NOT in there (i.e., steel), you instead could say the reinforcement that WAS included. Also, I think you put the s at the start of institut instead of at the end of Textiforshung. Also, not sure, is it Textilforschung???  Please verify the name and make sure it is correct. Also, patents does not need to be capitalized.
 * For the sentence "Later on a patent was awarded for a safety barrier that used a rope like reinforcement in its design." How much later on?  Be more specific, rather then using this generic time mention. Rope like should be hyphenated to rope-like.
 * For sentence "The significance of this patent was the specific mention of the arrangement of the reinforcing fibers inside. [1]" Maybe mention what that arrangement was or why it was novel at the time.
 * For the sentences "Concrete canoe is an important part of the textile reinforcements history. In 1996, universality students in Germany created a two concrete canoes using textile reinforcement." Instead of saying it's an "important part" (which is implied by the fact you're even discussing it), I would combine these two sentences together and just get to the specifics. I think you mean "university" students.
 * You say "The boats were to compete in the 1996 Concrete Canoe Regatta in Dresden, Germany." The way it's phrased makes it sound like they did not compete.  Just say that "The boats competed in the 1996 ..."  And combine with the subsequent sentence.

Construction section:
 * In general, you need to proofread this. There are numerous grammatical errors, including missing spaces, missing or extra commas, places where colons could be used, etc. I am not pointing out each instance because there are too many. One that is a typo is "pultrusion" which is presently written "Putrusion".
 * The organization of this section is a little confusing. Your first paragraph, for instance, covers the "main features", then the importance of "long bounds of fibers" (btw usually the bounds you mention would be tows or bundles as the terminology), then on to the difference between strain-hardening vs. deflection hardening, and on to the weaves.  It's a LOT of ideas that are not clearly connected and I get lost in all the new information.  Try to think of a strategy to organize your data so that it's one major idea per paragraph.  One paragraph on the concrete material, another on the fiber materials, another on the structure of how the textile is, another on how they're combined into a part, etc.  However you think it makes sense, but more consistent organization
 * Another comment on the organization; if you wanted, you could cover the materials first, ... then a good sentence to put might be the one where you say "Four factors are important when constructing TRC; the quality of the concrete, the interaction between the textile and the concrete, the amount of fibers used, and the arrangement of the textile reinforcement inside the concrete." (change the semicolon to a colon). And then that could be your organization for the subsequent sections!
 * Try to link to wikipedia where they have articles. An example would be "plain weave", "Leno weave", "warp-knitted", "filaments", "staples". Especially with filaments and staples, instead of defining them in your article, you just link on wikipedia to elsewhere and then it cleans up your article to not have the subsequent sentence that was there to define everything.
 * You use "TRC" as an abbreviation for Textile Reinforced Concrete, but I don't see it ever defined. Do not use abbreviations unless you define them for the reader. Especially since you only use the abbreviation a few times, maybe it's not useful to do it.

Uses section:
 * Textile-reinforced should always be hyphenated
 * Nanometers is one word
 * Additional typos and grammar issues. Please look again, and then I recommend you solicit someone from the class to review it again, maybe one of your teammates from the lab?
 * Your second through fourth paragraphs talks about the speculation on where it might be used, but is not yet done. So I would have only one sentence on possible uses, and spend the rest of the time just on actual real uses. Where is this actually seen in the world?

Sustainability section:
 * Additional typo/grammar issues
 * Can you be more specific about numbers of how much it would save on CO2? Or energy? Or has nobody studied that yet? If no specifics, and just ideas, then I would reduce this section by one or two line lengths.

I hope this helps, and I'm looking forward to the final product! UML MECH2960 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

MECH 2960 Instructor Review #2
Here are my biggest comments on the article now as presented on live wikipedia: Due to the thin, cost effective, and lightweight nature of textile-reinforced concrete, it can be used to create many different types of structural components." But then the rest of the paragraph talks about properties and crack control. It seems that's the start of a section on "Properties" that you could make a stub section and someone in the future could expand it, while the first sentence is very general and could probably be attached into one of the other paragraphs.
 * This sentence in the article: "Instead of using a metal cage inside the concrete, this technique uses a fabric cage inside the same." It's phrased a bit awkwardly (ending with "... inside the same.")  Can you fix that?
 * Great focus now on not covering all of reinforcements and sticking to textiles, reads much more smoothly now!
 * Still have a typo in the name of Textilforshungs-Institut. The L is missing
 * Why is textile capitalized in "a German institute focusing on Textile technology"? Probably shouldn't be.
 * need hyphen between transportation and related in "... was for transportation related safety items."
 * Best if combine these sentences into one (a bit wordy as two sentences): "The first patent for textile-reinforced concrete design, granted in 1982, was for transportation related safety items. These items were specifically meant to be reinforced with materials other than steel."
 * The 1988 patent description is 3 sentences, probably could be 2 (to be more concise).
 * The construction section is much better organized now - great work! It's a bit lengthy, but probably OK for that section of the article.
 * For Uses section, in sentence "Bridges, Pillars and Road Guards are prepared ...", you don't need to capitalize anything except the first word of the sentence.
 * Your second paragraph in that section says "

Overall, well done. It's exciting to see it on wikipedia, and I'm sure it's going to help others in the near future!

UML MECH2960 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)