User talk:Sop8hia/sandbox
Peer review
I thought that everything flowed excellent and objectively. I would recommend that you check your consistency on typing CO2 (big 2 or little 2). Also, in the history part of the white rose project, make sure that all capitalizations and spelling is correct since you typed once "CCS commercialization Programme" when you had previously referred to it as CCS Commercialisation Programme. Other than that I didn't find any faults on spelling or grammar and alll the links worked well. I thought overall it was a great job.
Monica.rdz.ma (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)User:Monica.rdz.ma
Rahul's Peer Review
[edit]Overall I think the article is quite well written. It is substantiated with enough citations and mentions enough facts to read like an encyclopaedia article. If the group has enough time, maybe they could do a visual timeline. The sub-heading “Expected specifications of captured CO2” seems a bit long, and maybe they want to consider rewording that. I don’t have any other suggestions
Imanrahul (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)