User talk:Zbrown47

Mularkey41 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I reviewed this page the first time and your group had not been able to set up the page completely and it looks like that may be the same issue are having this time although I did notice you had added a few more sources to your page which I looked into. I think you have really good sources and good information that didn’t seem to be biased. I think once you review some of the sources and get the main points out your page will be good. Its tough to make a legitimate review of the age since you have had difficulty putting it up but with the outline that your group has set up along with a lot of effective sources I think it will come together. I think the most important thing you guys need to do is make a detailed summary because your sources are pretty broad and don’t seem to be focused on something very specific so that would be the first thing I would do. Then follow your outline and make it as detailed as possible with some pictures to illustrate your topic.[reply]

Everything looks in order... Pmedward (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Comp Air Jet, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is well thought out. You have all the resources as well as the outline about what you actually want to add to the current page. One tip I would like to add is that you might want a different type of source, maybe a book or text source would be good. Other than that, great work.

Willscroggs (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZACH BROWN- The strengths of this Wikipedia page thus far is the outline. I can tell that the page will be extremely well organized and set up with a lot of factual information based on the outline. It looks like there will be a lot of useful information without putting too much information. -The weaknesses I see so far is obviously there is no information on the page I remember hearing you had lost some when trying to upload your page so obviously I take that into account, but you really need to get started on your page because you have a lot of information to find and not that much time. -I liked all of the information you had on your outline and I think you have a great start but I would include some of the pricing for these small sircrafts to make your page more interesting. This site… http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&setype=1&catid=3&Manu=LEARJET%20&pdcl=1

has the prices of similar jets you are looking at and would be good to find some prices on some of them to show people viewing the page what exactly they are looking at. I think it would be extremely useful to put pictures of each plane you look at and compare them so people looking at the page can get a visual image of what you are describing.

-Because you don’t have any information on your page it is tough to discuss whether or not the information is accurate or biased. I think after looking at your outline you will have a lot of factual information on the different planes you are looking at but you definitely need to get started on your research, because each plane will have a lot of information. 'Mularkey41 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

After reading your outline for your Wikipedia page, I am very interested to see the finished result. It is very well organized thus far although as others have mentioned no body of text exists yet. However, I can tell time and effort will be put into this article as the outline is very comprehensive. It is also a very original idea. I visited some of your external sites to see exactly what you would be discussing, and I was impressed with the depth of research put into this thus far. Your group is definitely on the right track. Jtcarc (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your Wikipedia page, I noticed that the greatest strength of the page is the outline. Even though you do not have information in the outline, it’s okay because it is only a rough draft. Because your outline is so big, I’m sure you will have a lot of information to provide for search of the subjects. I see that you have many great sources to use for the page so I am excited to see the final product.

When you begin building your page even more, I found it very helpful to look on existing Wikipedia sites for the symbols you use for bolding, citing examples, etc. All you have to do is click the edit tab on any existing page and see what they did. Bpellis (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Hello,

This page seems solid so far, but still needs some touch ups to help it grow. The outline will continue to be completed in detail I am sure as you move along in your process. Like Will said above, I think maybe a book source or possibly an encyclopedia source will help back up your claims and informational details. It seems as though you have a significant amount of knowledge about your topic already by the depth of your outline. Mrholman (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The outline for this article looks good so far. I think the biggest strength will be in the variety of information on the different types of aircrafts. It looks like you have a good plan on the types of things that the article will be about. Another strength is the planned organization of the article. If you stick to the outline, it will surely be easy to read the article and find important information within it. As for weaknesses, it is hard to judge because there is not any information yet. Based off the outline, the only thing I would suggest you change would be to move the History section so that it comes after the Overview section.

The resources that you have included on your page look good. “The U.S. Centennial Flight Commission” and the “How Products are Made” pages do not have any information specifically on the Comp Air Jet, so I would suggest just using them for general information on air crafts. Also, you should be on the lookout for biased information since Comp Air is a private company, thus it and its competitors might put out information that is meant to influence customers.

Some additional sources of information that you might consider are newspaper articles about Comp Air and their various air crafts. Also, the library’s databases on technology and engineering might be useful. Thechriskennedy (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by backman2013[edit]

Strenghts: The outline seems to be broad in scope and takes into account some interesting aspects of jet engines. The article also seems to be well-organized, although the "variants" subject heading should be moved to the spot behind the "design and construction" subject heading.

Weaknesses: The sources presented have a lot of information, but the sources themselves seem to lack authority. One of the sources listed is a press release, which might not be a good source for neutral information. The jet engine wikipedia page seems to be pretty extensive already, so it will interesting to see how much new information can be presented to readers here.

Backman2013 (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a dead link on your user page[edit]

You might want to replace it with http://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]