User talk:Winkert.e/My sandbox

Hi Eric,

Another interesting topic. Where on Wiki would be linking into this page, out of curiosity?

You should make your headings one size "bigger" (so that they're larger, serif-typeface headings with a divider line below them).

You should have a few more sources and citations within your article. While it's good that you can use that one source to support several ideas, you should use a few other papers/articles as well. Try to spread your citations throughout your paragraphs instead of just at the end. Also, I didn't any notice any links to other Wikipedia articles; you could probably link to things such as "specific impulse", "carbon nano tubes", and other technical terms that need further explanation.

Your writing seemed clear and engaging to me. I'd recommend adding commas in a few places for readability, though -- for example, one after "voltage" in "Due to this voltage the ions in the electrolyte", "100%" in "very high efficiency of nearly 100% as well as a high specific impulse", etc.

Looks like a good start to me!

Kotuby (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article seems very interesting. The article is following Wikipedia guidelines in its format, but it would be good to change the size of a header to make them stand out more (just like the references header) and to add some images of the nanotubes or the thruster itself.

The article could definitely use more references, and not using only 2 of them, and one of them 4 times. Maybe a few more links to other Wikipedia pages could be used, or adding some red links (if they were avoided) could benefit the future writing in the field. There are some issues with the first reference and the link to it is missing.

There are a few things that stand out in this article. The sentence " Due to this voltage the ions in the electrolyte stored in a reservoir directly connected to the tube can be accelerated and ejected" could use some rephrasing, "potential differences" should be potential difference and in the phrase "the amount of surface defects in the produced carbon nano tubes is high which reduces the efficiency significantly and unreliable." unreliable doesn't fit, maybe you wanted to say "efficiency significantly and makes it unreliable?" Pijanamuha (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Pijanamuha