User talk:Harleyjw/sandbox

"Article evaluation"

Feedback

Maybe start your intro explaining what the duck curve is just so readers have an immediate understanding of it. When I first started reading your article, I wasn't completely sure what it was until a few sentences deep into the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.140.46 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy's Peer Edit:

Though I have little background information on the duck curve, I think it would be helpful to explain that current market and then move to future expectations. Work on building your works cited and formatting your contribution. Think it would be a good idea to expand on the idea of green sources as abundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosasLopez8T (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: WRobertson

     ~ Be careful to keep a neutral tone, e.g. "whopping" ; "only growing further and further apart" ; "we need to look at..." "so what does the duck curve actually represent?" ; "This curve is actually proving that sometimes too much of something at once can actually be a bad thing" do not belong in a wikipedia page
     ~ This is an excellent analytical article, but this isn't appropriate for wikipedia.
     ~ Better organization is needed. e.g. "So, what does the duck curve actually represent? A critical part of this curve comes from the “Net load..." gives a reason why the Curve exists, this should be at the very beginning and under its own section. Sub-sections will help you a LOT, please use them: e.g. "origins"; "impacts of new technology"; "Future prospects"
     ~ Your sources are excellent and I don't doubt your evidence, but they need to be attached to specific pieces of information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRobertson (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]