User talk:Careschroeder/sandbox

Jnune14 Feedback: Black Hills
The paragraph that you added was very well written, and did a good job of correcting a mistake in the writing. You did a good job of clearly stating what you added on the talk page and your user sandbox, and you also did a good job of citing your sources both in-text and and in the references section of your sandbox page, but I don't see your citations on the actual article page. The last sentence under the "Cenozoic" section has a footnote for "citation needed," and the last sentence of the first paragraph under the tourism and economy section also needs a citation. To improve, you could provide details about how "100 year floods" affected the area as well as the groups of people that inhabited the area during these floods. Jnune14 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

BCarmichael feedback
This is a well-written contribution thoughtfully incorporated. The explanation on the Talk page is informative and clear. You need to go back to the article and correct the location of your citations, however. They directed back to your sandbox rather than included in the existing article. Another editor has removed them, but not replaced the citations. These references are appropriate and the content has been incorporated well. While you linked “Medieval Warm Period,” I also think you could link “Arikara” and “Clovis” to an existing Wikipedia pages. I'm in agreement with your peer on expansion of details. Were there any suggestions to the ecosystem and why this was an area to inhabit? How did the Native Americans alter this region (was this in the stratigraphic records)? Is there evidence of flooding influencing ecology or society? What about other natural disturbances, such as fire? These questions would help make more connection to the course and the types of disturbances that occurred and are expected today. Any use of these records for today? BCarmichael (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

GDoman1 feedback: Hurricane Katrina
You did a great job of adding quality information to an article that was already very developed. I think the information you added fits really well in this section and flows very well with the rest of the article. You also did a great job at explaining your edit and the creditability of your sources in the talk page. However, citations are needed for the following sentences, "Before the storm the standard mortality rate for the area's trees was 1.9%, but this interval increased to 20.5% by the end of 2006.[citation needed] Delayed mortality as an effect of the storm continued with rates up to 5% until 2011.[citation needed]" According to the talk page, it looks like a user deleted them because the original citation links did not work. When you edit the citations, try to link the sources so that they can be accessed without having to go through a database (I'm guessing that is what the problem with the original citations was). To improve, I would edit the citations that were removed and also add the citations to your sandbox page to make it more convenient to check the sources. Gdoman1 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Csmalls99 Feedback: Great Mississippi Flood of 1927
Your contribution is very well written and well thought out. Researching and correcting the original, incorrect figures was a great and much needed adjustment to the article. Before your edits the second paragraph was very confusing and redundant and made the article difficult to read and understand. You corrected the information thoroughly and also made the paragraph flow with the rest of the article. Giving more detail on the monetary damage caused by the flooding was also a very good addition that ties in the societal effects the flood had on people. The only issue I found with your edit was that it creates a conflict of information within the article, as your new figures and sources show monetary damages at $1 billion and deaths at "approximately 500", while statistics below the map at the top of the article still show deaths at 246 and property damage at $400 million. Other than this conflicting information, your adjustments improve the information and flow of the article immensely. Csmalls99 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)