User talk:Cdpak567/sandbox

Notes for Round 2 Peer Reviewers (4/1/16)

Here are some things I would like my peer reviewers look at specifically. I hope that you would be able to help me with these things.
Plans:

• Embed Pictures throughout the page once I have wikicode fixed on the sandbox.
• Expand on the Hyundai Rotem (In history part)
• Create a section named Costs for costs of operation and perhaps construction.
• Other plans can be seen at the top of my sandbox.
• The majority of what was suggestion is now in the works of being implemented. Sorry if this delay inconveniences you. Research for the additions is taking longer than anticipated.
  

Specific Questions :

• Are there any other areas where I could switch up the wording to be more readable? (Specifically in the past research section).
• As for the costs section I am working on currently, are there any other suggestions for the title? I'm trying to implement costs of construction and operation but I am not sure how to word that specifically.
• Any other suggestions besides that of the first peer reviewers would be greatly appreciated.
  

Peer Review

Hi Chris- I'll be doing a peer review for your article. Below are some things to note:

• It looks like the wikicode got a bit messed up when it was copied and pasted into your sandbox. This also messed with some of the figures/infographs, so for the final draft make sure that these get sorted out. I took a look at the original article's infographs and they look good; doesn't seem like any changes need to be made there. You could possibly add images to the Gallery if you'd like.
• There is some great content in the History section. However, in this section, be sure to differentiate between the train line and the train itself (for example, the train is not 3.8 miles long, but the train line is).
• Also in the History section, there are some things that aren't really history (the future plans to increase the size of the track).
• Was the project started as a result of KIMM, UMP, or both? Are KIMM and UMP related somehow?
• I took a look at the article for the Shanghai Maglex Train- there could be a few things to add from here, or other Maglev train articles (for example, talking about its construction and operating costs).
• Definitely add links, and lots of them.
• The Past Research section is good to show how this specific project has been used for studies- however, I don't think it's necessary to go into too much detail about the technology (e.g. braking systems). Consider mentioning these briefly and giving links to the Wikipedia articles on the tech. Gjeffrey18 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review by William Hunt

For expanding the history section I suggest adding more on the Hyundia- Rotem part. This is a small piece of information that I think can be expanded a little further with a few extra details. Also the history section mentions the tracks that are being planned to create a circular track. I think that explaining where these tracks will be placed can help clarify the plans. Also I'm not sure that this part belongs in history. Is there another place for this information to go in the article? I think the past research section is good. One suggestion I have is to simplify some of the phrasing. An encyclopedia should be understandle to everyone so some of the terms I felt needed explanation. Example, synchronous, maybe that's just me. The sentence that ends "magnetic levitation train system: the braking system" seems like it is written for a paper instead of just trying to get the facts across. Switching the phrasing here will make it easier to read and more encyclopedia-ish in my opinion. Huntwc (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2 by William Hunt

I think the language is good for this article. If you wanted to simplify it, you might be able to link to some terms and then you wouldn't have to define them. For example the different types of braking. If it is possible to link to the the definitions wouldn't be necessary to have in your article. As for the name of the costs section, I think cost can work with small subsections of operational costs and construction costs. The other thoughts I came up with were Project Funding and Overall spending. A minor detail is to make sure the contents box is fully formatted. Right now it's just a list, so I suggest that you turn it into a box before submitting the article. It looks like there are several articles that link to this page, so I don't think it is necessary to find pages that link to your article. Huntwc (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2- Greg Jeffrey

Again, the wikicode should be fixed so that the graphs show up nicely, but the content of them looks good. Also, add links, especially in the Past Research section (to explain some of the engineering terms). I think the organization and the language are both good- it will be easy enough to read. References need some work- make sure to format them appropriately. I'd recommend using the Visual editor for future edits- it makes formatting significantly easier. I think you'll have an article that's in good shape as soon as you expand on the History section and embed some pictures. Gjeffrey18 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)