User talk:BethanyJJohnson/sandboxPortOfHamburg

=Evaluations=

06/08/2018 Evaluation by WavesOfAmur

 * Points: 34.5/40
 * Grade: 87%

Meets Expectations (4) - in the first section - "The port is run by the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA)[1], who’s 1,900 employees manages port activities, development, and infrastructure maintenance[1]." - perhaps change the "who's" in this to "where", subsequently followed by "(where) 1,900 employees manage port activities, development, and infrastructure maintenance...". Moreover, sentence "With it’s new open tidal harbor...", the it's needs to be changed to "its". Some sentences may benefit from usage of commas, such as "In the summer of 1943, 80% of the port had been destroyed by the bombings of WWII."
 * Spelling/Grammar

Meets Expectations (4) - the language seems to fit Wikipedia standard well enough, and it looks like the integration would work well.
 * Language

Nearly Meets Expectations (3) - a couple of paragraphs may benefit from breaking up into parts - such as the paragraph under "History", "Terminals", and the initial paragraph. The initial paragraph should also have a title preceding it, as there is no formal structure as of yet for the subsequent titles afterwards (as in, the box that allows you to click to a particular topic does not exist yet). Many of your citations MUST have the period BEFORE the citation numerical indicator. Examples are seen in the first paragraph (...and the 11th largest container port in the world[3].", and there on after. Dr. Wright stated that it's crucial for it to be BEHIND the citation marker, so I'm just pointing it out to you so you don't get downgraded for something so minuscule. Lastly, your references section doesn't exist yet - it probably should.
 * Organization

Nearly Meets Expectations (3) - as stated before, the navigation panel is missing. It's a must in order for the edit to be integrated properly, and also makes the presentation much neater. As of right now, it kind of looks rather messy without it, but it would benefit from it invariably once it's added.
 * Coding

Meets Expectations (4) - Sources seem to be factual at first glance, however there is at least one news source used for information, and that may skewer the validity a little bit (but not necessarily!)
 * Validity

Exceeds Expectations (4.5) - Completion is definitely not a problem - there is more than enough information gathered here, and the requirement for paragraphs and sources is more than met. Meets Expectations (4) - The material is definitely relevant for the most part, however some bits of information, such as traveling time between cities (under "Partners" section) may be a gray area. Otherwise, I think the relevance pertains well enough into your edit, with regards to the city.
 * Completion
 * Relevance

Meets Expectations (4) - Quantity is abundant, and most sources are directly about the subject, which is great! There is, however, that one news source that leaves me questioning whether it'll be 100% factual, but it seems like it's not bad, so I won't say anything beyond nitpicking something so minuscule.
 * Sources

Meets Expectations (4) - your formatting looks rather consistent, at least at first glance, so I don't know what else to say here. The only problem, of course, has to do with putting the period BEFORE the citation markers in your paragraphs, otherwise it seems to check out fine.
 * Citations

Meets Expectations (4) - References formatting also looks fairly consistent - I think it just needs a 'References' section for more accessibility and for neatness, otherwise I think you're fine.
 * References

06/09/2018 Evaluation by Joshua Gramley
Hey, Bethany! Goodness, here we are, the final edit. Ok, here goes:

Spelling/Grammar nearly there. Some suggested revisions:

1. "who’s 1,900 employees" = should be "whose" 2. re: "but even as far as Turkey, Russia," ...I might play with the wording here. Something feels like it's missing. Considering the stem, you've got A: To and from other cities within Germany, Austria, etc. B: To and from other cities even as far as Turkey, Russia ...for a minimalist approach, maybe try: "as far abroad"? But still, there's an awkwardness here. Or maybe I am the awkwardness, as your reader. Eh, it's up to you to sort out :) 3. re: "and it’s recently built Cruise Center Steinwerder," = should be "its." Also, my instinct would be to consider hyphenating "recently-built." 4. "including coffee and for centuries it’s main trades were beer, pelts, and salt." = would recommend comma after coffee; again, that pesky "its" 5. "This cause the port to become an important center" = caused. My page is rife with the same sort of obvious stuff, which speaks, I think, to our mutual readiness for the end of the term :) The rest of this sentence runs on, by the way; you might want to play with revising, if you weren't planning to already.

Language nearly meets standards. Some questions:

1. re: "...and generated an added value of 21.8 billion euros within the country of Germany[8]." ...putting this in the past tense suggests that it corresponds to a specific period of time (e.g., in 2018, it generated...) Is that the case? Or rather, is it across a timespan? Some clarification here would be good, I think.

2. re: "and nearly one third of all goods which arrive into Hamburg’s port by ship continue by train to southern Germany, the Czech Republic, and Poland[5]." ...Have you tried playing with just making this its own sentence? This one runs on a bit, as it currently stands.

Organization nearly meets standards. Overall, this is really good, a real strength. I would consider playing with breaking up the paragraphs in the "history" section a little differently. As it stands, it feels like maybe the first big block paragraph could use a little more space to breathe in places; perhaps a little more transition for the subsequent paragraphs (really, just a sentence for each) might improve flow.

Coding nearly meets standards. Hey, does "Twin-Forty cranes" have a Wiki? Is it the same thing as a ring crane? Seems like it should link to something, for folks who are curious.

"Occupation" (for French occupation) doesn't link to anything specific; unless you can hitch it to something addressing that specific occupation, I don't know that you need to link this one. "Pelts" also links to a disambiguation page; if you can link it specifically to furs, I think it'll be an improvement. Same goes with "channel" later on, so you may just want to go through again and check for specificity on all of these, since there is a specific meaning in your context.

Validity nearly there. All of your material seems really solid, and well-phrased to represent the material in an encyclopedic fashion. One minor question: in immigration, can you provide a citation for the following claim? "At the time, this was the only port that had anything of the kind." ...seems like one of those things you'd want to be able to back up.

Completion exceeds standards. You did a really cool job with this one! I appreciate the diversity and quantity of different angles you took on describing the port, and how it connects to various facets of the city and region.

Relevance meets standards. Nothing here feels extraneous, everything enriches my understanding of the port.

Citations nearly meets standards. I believe that the citation should come after punctuation like periods and commas; here, you have it before that punctuation.

In this sentence: "The maritime industry is Hamburg’s largest economic resource[10], providing 156,000 jobs in the Hamburg metropolitan area[6] and nearly 268,700 for Germany as a whole," I'm curious about the placement of citation [6]. Is that 268,700 number from a different source? If so, seems like it should be cited. And it seems like unless there's a good reason against doing so, that [6] might go better at the end of the sentence anyway, in order to better preserve flow. I know that citation happens within sentences sometimes, but just as often, I believe I see multiple citations at the end of a sentence; I suppose I should refresh myself on the rules with this one, so I suppose it's something for us both to think about!

Sources meets standards. Looks like you went deep into the world of nautical media for this one! I see some academic journals, a fair number of what appear to be trade journals, and some official sites. It seems like these are all reasonable sources for this project, especially if they corroborate one another. And I note that you have 22 resources at present, which means you're in "above and beyond" territory, in terms of quantity of research...so nice work.

References nearly meets standards. Perhaps this would better fit under "sources" above, but I'm just noticing that I believe you have the same source cited twice (identically) in your references: source 5 and 15. Are they the same? If so, obviously, it would make sense to revise this :) By the way, just something to think about...in my own references, our professor has encouraged me to adjust page numbers for academic sources (like this source 5/15) to reflect the places from which I actually pulled info. I notice that the page numbers for this source are the default citation, and describe the entire article. If you used the entire article, cool; if no, you might consider narrowing down your page numbers a bit. Personally, I can see the logic to this, since if you want to fact-check something, it might be frustrating (for a non-student) to wade through 20 pages of academic journal text.

Alright--thus ends my nitpicking. Really beautiful work here, Bethany! This will definitely enrich the page. Joshua Gramley (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

6/13/19 Evaluation by GbrooksPDXStudent

 * Points: 44

Spelling/Grammar Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Well used, in terms of spelling and grammar. Not a single mistake or odd phrasing, definitely above standard.

Language Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Academic and concise language, love the descriptions of the raw supplies and usage the Port of Hamburg sees on a daily basis.

Organization Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Great legend with separated sections, makes the whole page a lot easier to read and understand.

Coding Exceeds Standard: 4.5

No flaws found in the coding or appearance of the page, well done!

Validity Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Statistics and information provided was all correct and showed impeccable research.

Completion Meets Standard: 4

Gave a great overview and details on the port's past, present, and future.

Relevance Meets Standard: 4

All relevant information will plenty of explanation of the port's history and current numbers.

Sources Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Sources appear both accurate and academic, adding plenty of worthwhile information and numbers to the article.

Citations Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Citations are in their proper format and are both easy to read and access.

References Exceeds Standard: 4.5

References are used often and expertly, linking to their appropriate page or adding needed detail to the listed section.

GbrooksPDXStudent (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

6/16/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright
DrMichaelWright (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is some great stuff here that I hope you will post to Wikipedia. I do, however, think that this is too much for the Hamburg page, and needs to be integrated with the Port of Hamburg page to flesh out and add to existing material without creating redundancies.
 * Points: 38/40
 * Grade: 95%

Spelling/Grammar
Meets standard.
 * TRIUMPH should not be in all caps.

Language
Meets standard.
 * "This saves vessels..." It is unclear what 'this' refers to, since it must mean the Kiel Canal, whereas the Port of Hamburg's up-river location is the subject in the preceding sentence. However, if the port was located further downriver, then it would still save ships from having to sail around Denmark.
 * "...within the country of Germany." That's an odd phrase for this context. Replace with "...within Germany."
 * "Emperor Barbarossa" is better called Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, since "redbeard" was his nickname, not his last name.
 * "...immigrants. It was the last stop for millions, some waiting in Hamburg for months before setting sail for America." In which case they would be emigrants, not immigrants. It's better to use the term 'migrants' to not specify direction of travel.

Organization
Nearly meets standard.
 * I'm not sure where on Wikipedia this text is supposed to go. Is it supposed to be added to the Hamburg page proper, in which case this material is too long, or is it supposed to go to the Port of Hamburg page, in which case I wonder how it fits in with the material that is already there.

Coding
Meets standard.
 * The headers are bolded, which makes them look odd in the contents.

Validity
Meets standard. 250 nautical miles is equal to 463km.

Completion
Exceeds standard.
 * You really have a wonderful amount of great text here. I'm just afraid that you're going to have to chop it down to add to the Hamburg article, and chop it up in order to integrate it with the exiting Port of Hamburg article. (See 'organization' above.)

Relevance
Exceeds standard. Very relevant!