Talk:Yarn engineering

This page was proposed for deletion by Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) on 10 February 2021.

Untitled

The article looks great! My suggestions are:

In the very first sentence I would somehow reduce how many times you say yarn
For the first sentence of the second paragraph it is a little biased so I would recommend deleting “are possibly”
For the last sentence of the second paragraph you probably want to add “The steps of yarn making…..” because the sentence does not define which process you are referring to.
I really like how you divided up each subsection!
For the synthetic section you might want to replace or delete the word much
In the natural section you connected the textile wikipedia page but I would tag it at the first time you use the word textile
For the other section, as a reader I am interested in what the other methods are called so I could look them up on my own
For the manufacturing process section, pictures would be a great visual to understand the processes and differences between them.
The first sentence of the Textile Engineering section is a tad biased.
I really liked the Heading and Subheading topics you used.

If I was reading just your lead section, I would expect to see something about cost mentioned further in the article so maybe that is an idea to add on to the article. But I appreciate how you mentioned the processes and steps in the lead sections and talked more about them throughout the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaatkins (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax/Specific Comments:

In Synthetic section, be sure to link to Nylons.
The Other section of the Yarn Classifications seems unnecessary, perhaps you can just mention the fact that there are other fiber types at the top of that section.
Your capitalization in the introduction of the Spinning section is odd, do you need to capitalize "Friction spinning" or "Commercial rotor spinning" like that?
Fix Ring-Spinning link in the Spinning introduction.
Take out, " An engineering approach can provide an alternate viewpoint and wisdom that can possibly be overlooked..." That is a little too subjective.

Organizational/General Comments:

Sources need to be cited in their appropriate places and you could add more length and depth.
You may want to discuss some of the other steps in the manufacturing process, it seems odd that you only discuss spinning after providing all of the steps.
You may want to consider making the Textile Engineering section into its own section, as that seems to be independent of the yarn manufacturing process. Maybe make it into a section about yarn engineering applications/industry.
You may want to discuss the difference between staple spun and continuous filament fibers, this is not really addressed much.

Rdmarshb (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits I can see in this page revolve around better explaining your topic.

your opening paragraph is pretty vague especially when you talk about the textile approach vs engineering approach, possibly elaborate on what each is
when you tell the audience the steps for manufacturing yarn it's nice to have the link but it would also be helpful to have a brief explanation of what each is - you could do this in process section
In your yarn classifications paragraph I can understand what staple spun and continuous filament are from context clues but again it would be nice to briefly explain what they are and why they are different/better
I like your yarn classifications subheadings and examples
In your manufacturing process section you bring up all the steps again but only talk about one
In your spinning sub-heading you should look into explaining briefly who/what "Thorp" is. You could also tell the history more like a story instead of a choppy timeline but that is a personal preference

Best of luck with future updates!

Markfgrant (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Njbaugh, Kadubrou, Dkmotes, Swingo35, Jcpate95. Peer reviewers: Bcolgla, Vaatkins, Sdbhutwa, Rdmarshb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yarn Engineering Peer Review

Looking at the lead by itself, the authors have done a good job in explaining what the article is about and provide a clear definition of the topic. The lead reflects all the information that is mentioned in the rest of the article, however, I feel like some context about textile engineering is missing considering the fact that it is one of the subtopics in the article.

The article definitely has a clear and well-organized structure. Different aspects have their own sections and the differentiation in sections is really easy to understand.

In my opinion, each section's length in the article resonates to its importance to the article's subject. Since the process of yarning is what's most fascinating, the authors have done a good job in explaining each step of the process with proper chronological headers. Nothing seems off topic yet, however, I would like to see more topics related to Yarn Engineering specifically to be included in the article.

The article states all the facts clearly without trying to draw any conclusions or give a biased point of view. Throughout the article, the use of neutral phrases is completely uniform and there are no claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people.

Everything mentioned in the article is verified through reliable sources of information and provides a neutral clear reflection of various aspects of the topic. The main sources of information are journaled articles and verified web sources. There are, however, no in-text citations in the article so there is no way to tell if the article is influenced heavily by anyone article but I would advise the authors to add those citations soon.

On the overall, the authors have done a decent job presenting the first draft of the article and what impressed me the most is the explanation of the manufacturing process. If I had to suggest any changes or additions, they would be to add more content related to the uses of Yarn Engineering, add in-text citations and give credit to your sources and maybe add a picture or two describing the manufacturing process. I noticed how you added a brief description for every heading before moving onto the subheadings and that is something that I would consider implementing my own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdbhutwa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I think, in general, all of the sections fit the subject well. The textile engineering section seems a little confusing and since there is a textile engineering, I'm not completely sure what the purpose of it is -- maybe a different title would be better. The only other thing I can see is maybe add more content to each of the process subsections, but I am not sure how much more you can add. Well done on the content that is in there already. Bcolgla (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Njbaugh (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Thanks for all of the feedback! It was very helpful when editing our article.[reply]

Load of rubbish

I have prodded this today because it's crap. the above reviews appear to have been written by gormless people. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]