User talk:BradLandry/sandbox

TO THE NEXT PERSON EDITING: I went in and changed some things grammatically and structurally. Go to the history to view his original document and make grammar corrections and such on that.

Feedback
Overall, your contributions to this article are significant and well-written. You add a lot of pertinent information to the article. I do think you could edit the original Legal Response section to further improve the article and to make sentences flow better. Some wording could be changed to make it read more civilian e.g. change 0600 to 6 a.m. Also, I think adding in either a sentence or an entire section about the everlasting repercussions of the oil spill on the ecosystem is necessary. For example, you state that the oil-filled barge is still in the ocean. Does this mean the ocean is at risk for another spill if that ship were to be damaged in some way? Are species still affected today? Have the wildlife adapted to changes in the coral reef? Did endangered species die out, and were new endangered species created? All of these are important questions that need to be addressed, as they relate to the full consequences of the oil spill and the ecosystem's recovery (you could even put these answers/information in the conclusion section I mention adding later on).

Clear, logical organization and structure
The article is presented in a good structure and is easy to read and to follow. I like the inclusion of the wildlife and environment sections as they pertain to the class. One suggestion I have for better sentence flow is to move the Legal Response section because the end of the Cleanup of Oil subsection reads well as an ending to the whole article as compared to the Legal Response section and ending.

Writing adequately developed and supported by evidence, examples (specifics)
Though you do include a good amount of examples, I would like you to elaborate a bit more. Why were some of the Most Affected Species "least resilient" to the oil spill and what precisely was the effect on these animals? Explain further the effects on tourism caused by the oil spill. What parts of the Oil Pollution Act exactly did the cleanup adhere to? Elaborate on the problems experienced by the cleanup crews that you briefly mention in the Cleanup subsection. After listing multiple affected species or organisms, go back and focus on one as an example. This will help to provide a real case of how the oil spill impacted one specific organism. This is more effective than a long list of examples. Also, you should expand on the Affected Environment section. What exactly about the environment was affected? Was it temporary or long-lasting(if so, how long)? Something needs to be included to further elaborate on this important part of the anthropogenic disaster.

Well written: clear, concise sentences comprehendible at a high school level
Your sentences were well-written and most everything was easy to understand at a general level. One thing for improvement is perhaps explaining in more detail why the remaining oil could not be retrieved from the ship safely and why some animals were not saved using the soap cleaning treatment. Doing this concisely and in layman's terms would help for a more well-rounded, clear understanding of the disaster.

Factual, not persuasive writing: neutral, unbiased
The writing is completely unbiased and is presented in a nonpartisan, neutral manner. There was no persuasion used in the article.

Appropriate section headings
All of the new section headings were titled well, although like I mentioned previously I would rearrange the Legal Response section (or you could add a short conclusion section). One important addition that I believe must be made is the detailed inclusion of the effects on mankind and human economy brought about by this oil spill. Though you briefly mention that tourism was affected, you do not include much else on the impact on humans (legal section aside). I think adding in a section for the impact of local communities as well as possible side effects (did any humans die or suffer from exposure to oil?) would be extremely beneficial to understanding the full impact of the disaster.

Appropriate references provided, including scientific peer-reviewed articles
Your references are peer-reviewed journals from a multitude of sources. My one question is if you can make all of the sources linkable as this would help future research into this subject. If not, that is understandable. In using these references in citing, you leave out citations for the beginning of the Wildlife section, which is important as you mention a lot of numbers. Also, there is a large paragraph in the Cleanup subsection in which you do not cite. Citations in these instances would serve as useful tools to be sure the information is factual and supported by evidence.

In-line links appropriate
You did a good job of placing in-line links to appropriate sources that help to provide further context for the page. You could include more in-line links in the beginning when you discuss specific sea life and specific historical places affected by the oil spill as this would create more useful, illustrative information for the reader.

No grammatical or spelling error
As a note, make sure every time you mention the ship's name, you italicize it. Also, when you use the "J" in the name of the ship, a period should be placed after it. Other than that, I went ahead and corrected minor grammatical and sentence structure errors for you. Check the history page. Also, be sure to reread sentences for correct use of verbs and punctuation.

Rlambert1893 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from Dr. Becky
Rlambert1893 has provided you with extensive feedback for improving your article and I agree with her evaluation. Overall, you have made an impressive contribution and I encourage to keep going. The lead section is impactful and grabs the reader's attention. Look at this style and apply it to the rest of the article. Improvements can be made by supporting statements with citations, including peer-reviewed scientific references. Carefully evaluate the organization of information for clarity and remove redundant and unnecessary phrases. There are several places that lend well to internal and external links. Including those offer the reader additional resources for a deeper understanding about this oil spill. Work on making more specific comments and less generalities. Some sentences read as run-ons. Finally, be sure that the connection between ecological effects and societal effects is clear- you do get into this, but it needs further development. I am looking forward to the next version of this article!! B.J.Carmichael (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Headline
For my headline I said that I would remove any unnecessary information. I did that by removing any words or phrases that did not contribute anything to the sentence that they were in. I did this the most in the Legal Response section. I also combined some sentences to make things less redundant. I combined three sentences together in the Effects on WIldlife section. BradLandry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)