User talk:Joeyw526/sandbox

Peer Review by William Hunt[edit]

I think the intro is good and describes the topic very well for a general audience. When it says applications are widespread, it only gives two examples. I think adding examples here would be beneficial to the page. Also I think sections for these examples is a good idea like the one that is already present for transportation. Smart grids was mentioned and elaborating on this would help. There is some wording that doesn't seem fit for an encyclopedia. For example "effectively removing the hassle." This word seems casual and I don't think that is what Wikipedia is looking for. Huntwc (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolew1995 Peer Review for Joeyw526[edit]

Things that need to be improved:

Contents box is on top of the article, should be somehow placed below the first section of the article
structure is good, but missing a lot of information.
information box should have a little more information in it
More information should be added to the transportation section, should go into more sections under this main one with more examples.
references should be formatted in the way wikipedia wants them to be citated

Things that are good:

Language and tone sound good
Citations in the article itself look fine
Includes a chart as well as the see also, external links and notes sections, which are important

Nicolew1995 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2 by William Hunt[edit]

I think the expansion of the uses of computational sustainability is good. The language is good for the most part. One example that I think can be changed or better described is "bugs being patched." I'm not sure how common of a phrase that is. It seems like there is a lot of information without a reference. I suggest adding some references into the article just to validate what is being discussed. As of right now there aren't many articles that link to this one, if you can I think having the ITS page, Smart grid page, and sustainability page link to the article would be a good idea. I also think having at least one more example will improve the article. Huntwc (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2 Nicole Wojcik[edit]

I like the addition of more information to Transportation section. However, I feel that you should include another section to explain computer sustainability a little better. In addition to that, you should expand the utilities section which only has one thing under it. You could also link some pages from the bodies of your text. Another thing that should be done would be add more sources to the first paragraph of the transportation section. I feel that there is a lot of information in it and it needs some kind of citation. Nicolew1995 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]