Actively involved in Devopedia, which is an open community platform for developers by developers to explain technology in a simple, clear and unopinionated way. Interested in tech writing and regularly contributes articles to Devopedia.
Interested in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Leading various NLP research initiatives at Devopedia.
Self-published a book in 2013, titled "The Infinite Bit: An Inside Story of Digital Technology".
Found the date in the source. Thanks.
Also, "Destructive testing is a qualitative analysis method to determine the material properties like tensile strength, elongation property, hardness value, and impact toughness, among others" is an exact copy of ...
Why is this reference dated 2017, April 25: https://www.twi-global.com/what-we-do/services-and-support/asset-management/non-destructive-testing/ndt-techniques/eddy-current-testing
I was not able to find this date at the source. Please clarify where yo ...
Citation of last image says Devopedia. Image seems to be picked up from an unnamed source.
Other images are jpg. They should be SVG so that future authors can edit them.
0. With minor changes, it can be published. Some comments repeated from previous review.
1. All your change descriptions are not useful (editing, editing content, etc). One useful one was "adding see also". Just like git commit messages, these descri ...
1. Summary: needs rewrite. This summary is good for an article introducing functions. For current article, summary can intro funcs in two lines, then talk about what features are included in C++, etc. The school example is not accurate since it's talk ...
The difference between bare and non-bare is not clear. Non-bare: article claims there's no .git folder but the first answer defines a repository w.r.t to such a folder.
Also, Git has no formal expansion. The expansion in Summary is a slang and never u ...
I'm in the process of improving the article. May I know how you figured out the date of the article for https://about.gitlab.com/topics/version-control/ as October 20, 2020? Thanks.
0. Good work. After minor updates, we can publish.
1. Second para in Summary is one long sentence. Can break into smaller ones.
2. Video noted in chat: can use it for first answer instead of the image if you wish. In fact, your answer talks only about ...
0. Overall a good article. Only minor changes needed. Plus, proposing two more questions.
1. Summary looks good to read. More citations would be better. Only first para has a citation. I felt NDE and NDI are okay in italics. Italics for others seems l ...
0. Overall, well written. Writing is simple and clear. Good work. Order of questions can be improved. When order changes, author should also think about intro the terms (working copy, repo, etc.) at the right places.
1. Introduce Git in Summary. After ...
0. Will publish shortly. May need improvements later.
1. First answer: much better than before.
2. Some duplication as mentioned in previous review but I see the improvements you have done.
Will publish shortly. Saw the new milestones. It's better. Explanations are better than your earlier versions. I may edit them further to simplify for the reader. You can study my changes later. It will help you improve your grammar and writing.
