User talk:Hhausman/sandbox

Peer Evaluation[edit]

Hi, I hope the suggestions below may help you:
1. I agree with the idea of adding some current projects and outside the US.
2. If possible, you can update the situation of projects mentioned in the EOR page (Boundary Dam, Canada/Petra Nova, United States/Kemper Project, United States)
3. If you want to edit the EOR history, you can consider to edit the "4 CO2 EOR in the United States" of the article, and edit the structure of the article.

Apjil (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anant's Peer Review[edit]

The Overall structure, content and sources are in tune according to me , but here are some of the insights on plausible improvements : Using the tone such as 'Large Impact' should be made more explicit as it is open to interpretation i.e. explaining whether the impact is good or adverse , and also the word large is a very subjective and hence can be interpreted by different readers in different ways. The argument i raised above can be continued to the usage of word 'Significant' to describe the regulatory power . Overall the changes are notable ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantvis (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]