User talk:Winkert.e/sandbox

Hey Eric,

I think your title is good and it definitely seems like an interesting, useful topic for Wikipedia. I'm aware that you didn't write the first half or so of this article, but I made a few comments on that part anyway -- can't hurt to have cleaner source material :)

I think the opening sentence is a bit of a mouthful. You could make it easier to follow my changing "[...] no propellant is necessary but instead momentum of the spacecraft [...]" to "[...] is necessary. Instead, [...]", for example.

Your TOC is in an odd place; try forcing it to be directly below your opening paragraph by typing __ TOC __ there without the spaces.

I like how you've split up your topic, but I think it would make more sense to get rid of the "types" heading and make its subheadings top-level. Further, instead of making "Advantages" a subheading of "Speculative methods", you might be able to expand it slightly into its own section. (You may already be planning to do this -- it's a bit hard for me to tell from the sandbox setup.)

For such a technical subject, you're light on references. I'd recommend searching around for some more links to cite with.

General relativity is already linked earlier in the article, but I'd link to "quantum field theory" the first time you mention it.

Any chance you could add a picture or two? Even a sketch illustrating something semi-relevant about general relativity would break up your text nicely.

I look forward to seeing your finished article, this seems like a really cool topic.

Kotuby (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The section that you added fits well in the article as a whole. You should consider rearranging your structure of headings and subheadings so that you lose one level of subheadings. To be more specific, I suggest removing "General relativistic field propulsion system" and "Quantum field theoretical propulsion system" as a headings and just make the division clear in your writing. It would look better as an article as a whole. Also pushing the "Advantages" heading at the same level with "Practical methods" and "Speculative methods" and deleting the "Types" could improve the structure. You could use more links to other Wikipedia pages (blue and red) and some images of the different systems that could help explaining them. The references are not edited properly (the extra pages on the end) and links to the articles are missing. Pijanamuha (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Pijanamuha