User talk:TaMAGLE/sandbox

(Comparing existing article and edits in sandbox side by side)

Lead Section: Very clear, concise explanation of the article. I really like the etymology explanation. If anything, I would suggest adding one or two sentences about the big picture, like what applications nanoengineering currently has or how big the industry around nanoengineering is, which will help the reader understand the importance of the article. After reading the rest of the article, I feel like the general explanation of nanoengineering is good, but doesn't reflect the rest of the article, which focuses more on the history and education of nanoengineering. I would suggest adding additional sections, though, instead of rewriting the lead to better fit the existing article.

Structure:I feel like techniques, and other information more pertinent to actual nanoengineering should come before the academic section just because it seems the least relevant part of the article. I don't think you wrote the degree programs section but I would consider either cutting it out or really cutting down on the information relative to the rest of the article because it seems a little weird that most of the article isn't even about nanoengineering itself, and most readers probably would be less interested in the academics than the actual research and field of nanoengineering.

Balance:See above comment on Degree programs section. Maybe consider expanding on techniques, or talking about current applications of nanoengineering. I feel like the bulk of your article should be the technicals of nanoengineering, and focus less on history, but that may be a personal choice for what you want to do with your article. Added content is unbiased and factual, and doesn't try to convince the reader of an argument.

Neutral Content:Most of the content in the article and in the edits in the sandbox is factual, and cannot be spun in a way to prefer one group over another. No suggestions for improvement here.

Reliable Sources:All of the added content in the sandbox comes from the same source. Could you verify some of these dates with other sources? No sources from academic papers or journals, could be useful to use some research to support the techniques section or current events if you choose to add a section like that.

Kathychen1 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Peer Review
Lead Section: I like that give an explanation of the origins of the word itself. I would expand this section to include more of the applications of the field or the key discoveries that made the field important. This gives a better idea of the things that you will talk about later, or at least it gives the reader a better idea of what nanoengineering is without going through the specific. You do not necessarily need specific examples because you can go into specifics later on.

Structure: I like how the "History" section follows immediately after the lead. This section includes a lot of interesting aspects of the field and how it came to be--I would consider mentioning the first degree program within the field here, and then expanding on it further in the section following. The article's meatiest section is the one on degree programs which I think needs to be consolidated more maybe even cut. As is, the article seems to be almost entirely dedicated to this section which does not give the reader a comprehensive idea of what nanoengineering is. I think this section is a good addition, but I think the article needs an application section, or a list of techniques.

Balance As I said earlier, the balance of this article leans in favor of the "degree programs" section which is not as important to the topic as techniques and applications are.

Neutral Content Nothing much to say here: the content is objective and fair. Keep it up!

Source Only four sources are cited in whole. I would consider adding more to double check certain information that you have used or in order to cite some of the statements used already.

Ewardwell (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to the previous peer review: I agree that the degree programs section is a little bit lengthy and I will consider cutting some of it out. I will also work on making an applications section. thanks for the feedback both of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaMAGLE (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)