User:Pdenmark/sandbox

Step 4 : Critique notes
 * -definition is eh--doesnt really explain the concept super well
 * - source 2 cant find
 * Does last sentence of first para even need to be there?
 * 2nd paragraph makes claims with no sources.
 * “Community gardening in most communities are open to the public and provide space for citizens to cultivate plants for food or recreation” awk phrasing.
 * “A community gardening program that is well-established is Seattle's P-Patch.” changing to a well dev community gardening program makes it less passive
 * 4 source cant get to
 * First para of history lacks flow and kind of doesn't show as well as it could how it related to getting to urban farming
 * Not a citation where says citation needed
 * 8 and 9 source links don't work.
 * Last para of history is fully an opinion and should probably be cut out, it would be used in perspectives as some people think that with a source, but it doesn’t work there because it is opinion and not history.
 * Resource and economic and environmental perspectives have way too long of quotes that could be easily explained in ones own word and probably violates wikis plagarim rules.
 * 11 source cant find article
 * Block quotes vs non block quotes, what applies? (in food security)
 * Why not quote marks in block quote?
 * Weird quote in 2nd half food security
 * Why sprouting jar in impact area
 * Upa vs ua, need consistency--whats the difference
 * 17 doesn't work
 * 24 doesn't work
 * Coherency of social impacts, last paragraph seems really out of place
 * 26 link doesn't work
 * 30 link doesn't work
 * Reduction in ozone and particulate matter--could be written better, just general edits of making language sound better.
 * Why need to separate energy efficiency from others below. Could all just be under environment
 * Noise pollution section isn;t that well written either
 * 43 wrong hyperlink
 * Economy of scale could be incorporated elsewhere and the title makes no sense
 * 50 link doesn't work
 * Some of environmental justice doesn't seem like it really fits
 * Last 2 paragraphs of implementation have no sources even though they make claims.
 * Benefits and trade offs should be before all the examples especially since the examples take up more space