Welcome![edit source]


Hi Drew91w,

Welcome to the Appropedia wiki. Please make yourself at home! If you need a general wiki-tutorial, see the main help page (or the more in-depth one on WikiEducator).

Check your preferences and be sure you verify your email address and turn on email notification if you'd like it -- you can find out when your talk page, or any page on your watchlist, is modified. You may want to upload a photo or information about yourself to your userpage (which is at User:Drew91w).

If you have a particular interest or project in mind, go ahead and start it! If you have questions or suggestions, the best place to leave them is at our community discussion page, which we call the Village pump - you should get a fast response. Or, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you have further questions, need help finding your way around, have a cool idea for a project, or just want to chat.

Glad to have you here!


Feedback sections/template[edit source]

Nice work so far. See below for comments on some sections:

  • Abstract
  • Background
  • Problem statement
  • Criteria
    • Grading criteria
    • Formatting (should look good, sortable table for criteria) +20
    • Thoroughness of content (who, what, when, were, etc.) +40
    • Considers audience (this will be read by people outside the US and in the future, consider things such as most people do not know where Arcata is) +30
    • Extra (e.g. images) +10
  • Literature Review
    • Grading criteria for Literature Review:
    • Formatting (should look good, see Appropedia suggested formatting) +20
    • Thoroughness of research (at least 3 books and 1 peer reviewed journal per person... lots of credible web refs) +40
    • Uses reference format +30
    • Extra (amazing sources) +10
  • Construction
  • Timeline
    • Grading criteria for timeline:
    • Spelling and grammar +15
    • Completeness of timeline +35
    • Table formatting +15
    • Timeline introduced +15
    • Separate columns for propose and actual completion date.
  • Costs
    • Grading criteria for costs:
    • Formatting (should look good, see https://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples#Cost_Table formatting) +20
    • Thoroughness and up-to-dateness of budget (should display necessary components, including donations, have an introduction, etc) +40
    • Mathematical accuracy +30
    • Extra (sortable, etc) +10
  • Operation
  • Maintenance
  • Schedule
  • Instructions
  • Conclusion
  • Testing results
  • Discussion
  • Lessons learned
  • Next steps
  • Troubleshooting
  • Team
    • Grading criteria for the remaining sections:
    • Grammar and spelling +10
    • Formatting +10
    • Depth, breadth and accuracy of content +70
    • Project documentation's potential for impact (e.g. reproduction) +10
  • References
  • Categories

Enjoy, --Lonny (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2015 (PDT)