User talk:Officerbigcactus
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Officerbigcactus, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer review #1
[edit]I referred mainly to the welding article and the shale oil extraction article as templates (both are featured articles). These articles contain a history section and an economic and environmental considerations section. The quenching article might benefit from the addition of these. Contrary to what I said in class, it seems that the template articles break down each process into its own section. However, each section is a full paragraph, more than just a few lines. I would suggest expanding the descriptions of each process, if possible, and separate them by subheadings. It seems the references are a little thin in the process section. Further research into these processes may help you to validate and elaborate on your claims. The intro section has very helpful links and is properly written in plain language. Vivehoadie (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review #1
[edit]Intro paragraph explains quenching well and is easy to understand. I do not see any references or citations right now in the sandbox, but I assume that you intend to add them later. The organization is an improvement on the previous version of the article, and so is the general clarity. You may want to consider breaking up the large first paragraph under the process section to make it easier to read. One way would to give each step of the process its own paragraph and expand on each step, if possible. The purpose section is a little less clear than the process section, and should probably be expanded. The history section should probably be on its own rather than a subheading of the purpose section. O'DwyerC (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)