User talk:Ayden3a/sandbox

I'm confused. A Wikipedia article about Food Not Bombs already exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs I'm also not clear at all what this article is about. Do you intend to insert this content into another article? Which one? It's also not clear what a public nonprofit and political economy have to do with each other. If you go to the FNB page you'll see a history. You could investigate several of the groups major successes. As it is currently written it's not clear what the contribution is. Also, the article is filled with typos, the citations are done incorrectly and the there's no outline. Mcassell04 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I found this article particularly interesting since I have never heard of the organization before. As I read through your article, I developed a few critiques I would like to share. First, I think the article could use a good proofreading in terms of grammar and capitalization issues. For example, the F in from in the first paragraph does not need capitalized. Additionally, the last sentence of the first paragraph does not read properly. Furthermore, there is inconsistency with the capitalization of the word "not" in the title of the organization. It's little things like this that need to be checked for before submitting a final edition. As I was reading, I also felt like there was a missing sense of overall flow. While there are some sentences that I believe are particularly wordy (the very first sentence), I felt like there needs to be better transitions between ideas. For example, the second paragraph seemed like it was simply "Here's an idea" and "Then, here's another idea." The purpose of it seemed to get a little lost and the paragraph could use a bit more coherency.

There are a few other things that I picked up on that are a bit "nitty gritty," per say. I thought there should be a citation about the second sentence in the second paragraph about the grants. I also felt like the language used in the second-to-last paragraph may be improved to alleviate any sense of bias. Lastly, I found the section about the Court of Appeals case fascinating! It seems strange that the United States would ban a sense of charity. Once again, I feel like that section could benefit from a bit of re-organization and better transitions.

Despite these critiques, I found your draft rather intriguing! Nice start.

Jfilm1 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

First off I would like to start off by saying this is avery interesting article because I never knew a such group existed. It is a great start to your wikipedia article however, I personally believed you used the group "Food Not Bombs" way to much in here where it kind of distracted me while reading. Maybe you could just say "the group" or something of that nature because I would already know you are talking about Food Not Bombs. As well as overstating that there are many grammatical errors such as spelling, capitalization, and spacing between words, which could be fixed very easily. I thought it was very interesting and a good idea to bring up dumpster diving and relate it to your topic. In addition to the court cases you brought up were such a great add to your writing, which added history to it and gave me an idea of what the courts were doing about these so called charities. Overall, I think you are off to a tremendous start and now it is time to take your paper to the next level with some editing. Joeconnick (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)joeconnick (Talk)