Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Global Enterprise and Sustainable Development (Ming Xu)/Sandbox Sustainable cities

[Peer Evaluation from Lylian Dang] In my opinion, the introduction: "People. Planet. Profit." is not necessary. I think that this group should go right into talking about the definition of a sustainable city. As a reader, I am more interested in knowing what are the criterions that qualify a city to be a "sustainable city" (e.g. cap on how much CO2 emissions there are, percentage of buildings which are built of sustainable material) rather than reading about a broad definition of a more broad topic they introduced ("the triplebottom line").

The group does a great job explaining eco-industrial parks, urban farming, walkable urbanism, etc., but I think the group should also mention how cities across the world are trying to make their city more sustainable. What kind of building materials are they using? Is the use of these eco-friendly materials feasible for a government budget?

I also think that there is a lot more topics on sustainable cities, for example:
 * Does sustainable city also require a city to have production of local energy to power the city itself?
 * What kind of (or are there) governmental support and policy (or potential policy) are in place to make sure that the implementation and enforcement of sustainable programs?

Overall, the group has great information to suggest how a city can take the first steps in becoming a more sustainable city, but has not gone in depth about what a sustainable city is.

[Peer Evaluation from Harsh Jhaveri - harshjhaveri009]

The introduction should be removed because the Wikipedia page should go straight into the topic of sustainable cities. I suggest that the points made in the introduction can be used as concluding remarks in the individual sections. Perhaps the introduction should be shortened into a caption that can be used for the image provided. The structure of the Wikipedia page is easy to follow and should be kept as it is. However, the first section of the page should have a clear, concise definition of exactly what a sustainable city is. This is the key missing element in the sandbox. The information and details provided is sufficient and easy to follow. Slight error in the policy page, there needs to be a title in the sub-paragraph. Right now, is just labeled as “Title." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshjhaveri009 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[Peer evaluation from Derek Guminik - dguminik1]

I also believe that the introduction should be cut from the page, but the information presented is valuable and can fit further down in the page somewhere, maybe even given its own section. The biggest problem I feel like is that with a page like Sustainable cities, it can be expanded into lots and lots of different areas, and sections. The group could have went a ton of different ways in designing the page layout and what information to include, I think they covered the architecture and transportation section extremely well, but lacked slightly on the examples section. For the group’s examples, they talked about some aspects of the transformation, but were not too specific and didn’t mention other parts of the city’s sustainable plan. I also think that the obstacle section could be expanded upon, every city is different and though similar plans and sustainable designs can be replicated; there will never be a one to one match. Also, there was no governmental or public policy section even though governments and policies were mentioned in the page, I think there is enough information to make this its own section within the page framework. The group’s layout is very good and easy to follow and read, but more detail is needed in a couple sections within the page. Dguminik1 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)