User talk:Tigbergamaschi/sandbox

The most of your contribution is well developed and sourced. From a structural point of view it is well written since your contribution is made of small edits in the Space Exploration article. However there are points that though seem reasonable, don't present any reliable source of information. For example in the description of A.I. in correlation to space exploration technologies, there is no citation and the "rules" of Wikipedia impose that there should be at least one citation per important statement or information presented. There are also small errors in the Physical Issues sub-paragraph for example when there are statements in which the subject in discussion is not clearly stated but only suggested. Also I observe that you have improved parts of the online article (because I have found sources on the Space Exploration article), but you have not synchronized that with what is in your sandbox. In the final part I understand that you try to persuade readers to believe in the importance of the space exploration and its usefulness for humanity, but there will be readers that will complain of the diction you use. You could add more information if you have to the A.I. part because probably there are more teams or agencies in the world that make experiments with autonomous robots for space exploration. Codrin Paul Oneci (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This looks to be a really strong start. So far, the sources (the 20+ references in your sandbox) are solid citations and the identification of multiple subsections (within deep space exploration) will greatly enhance the existing article. I would like to see more detail added to those subsections as you move forward, but this draft indicates that you are moving in the right direction. Amyc29 (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)