User talk:Efroe/sandbox

Hi group! I am not sure how our references are supposed to be formatted, currently, I just have the link and the title. If I found the source on another Wikipedia page, I just copied it over from how they cited it. Any thoughts on how we should format? Pick a format and stick with it? Also, feel free to change anything I have done and add and subtract sections, I added them as I found mentions of things as I was doing research, they may not actually be what we want in the long run.Efroe (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi all- I am done for tonight, let me know what you think when you get a chance to look at it. There are a few sections which just have sources listed, the sources looked good for the topic, but I haven't had a chance to write the section yet. Efroe (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello group - I have edited some of the existing information and added new one. Regarding references, I am doing it based on other Wikipedia pages (it's a good idea to take a look at featured articles). -- Svolont331 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget to write a description of your edits as you make them so we can all know what you changed. Efroe (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Source Code Issues

Hi group- I noticed that the source code for our article does not match the read tab. The heading titled "Issues in Groundwater Engineering" still exists in the source code, but does not appear in the read tab. Nothing I have tried has been able to fix this. I have reached out to the Wikipedia staff listed on the course page for help with this issue. Efroe (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Bennett Meyer peer review

Hello everyone.

Your lead section seems very well detailed and appropriate for the material covered. As this page is to be an edit of an existing page [Hydrogeology], efforts may need to be made to discuss issues present on the original page in the lead as well.

The organization is a little haphazard, with the basics of aquifers coming after the description of water wells. Perhaps it would be best to reorder this. History is well placed however. The actual differences are unclear in the topics of the sections titled Issues in Groundwater Engineering, particularly between Fracking and Controversy, and New Trends. This organization may need reconsideration.

The article has balanced coverage and an encyclopedia tone for the majority of its length, handling the Fracking section especially well. The Controversy section, however, looses its encyclopedic tone. Particularly the use of adjectives to describe the scope of issues. These are not raw facts and I would recommend revising these sections for a more neutral tone. The tone the New Trends section seems slightly too informal, although still impartial. Slight revisions might be necessary.

All of the sources used in the article seem well cited and to be the best sources available.

Overall, it is great work and after a little bit more revisement, it will be a great improvement on the existing page. Your use of linking to other Wikipedia pages is very good. Great work!

Bomeyerncsu (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Thanks for the feedback! It was super helpful!

Group- I have gone through the peer review and made the changes suggested therein to our article. If someone could go back over what I have done, and make sure that what I have changed checks all those boxes, I would appreciate it. I am planning on starting to move things over to the mainspace tomorrow.

Efroe (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Water Wells Section Moved

Hi group- I have added the entire water wells section into the mainspace hydrogeology. I will refrain from adding more until Sunday afternoon as we discussed to give others an opportunity to contribute to the mainspace before the deadline. Let me know if you have any other questions or things you need from me before then.

Efroe (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Henry Hobbs peer review

You have a strong lead section. One thing I noticed is that you mentioned groundwater engineering including heat storage and dewatering as topics, but I didn't see either of those expanded in the article.

I think including a glossary is a great idea. I found a helpful page that has some tips for writing glossaries on wikipedia. One suggestion I'd make is to alphabetize it for easier searching.

The history section gives a good overview. It looks like a reference is needed for the info on Henry Darcy.

Other than that, I don't have any other criticisms. Your article is well put together with plenty of sources. I also like the addition of the new trends section. Henry.m.hobbs (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Rest of Article Moved

Hi group--

As we discussed, I have moved the rest of the article into the mainspace, as it was not done during the week. If you make any edits to the article, please also make them in the mainspace. I did not move the glossary section, as I felt it was not needed (the main article has a well developed terms section already). Efroe (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)