User talk:Catcmckinney/sandbox

MChoi Feedback: 1481 Rhodes Earthquake
I think it was a good idea to clarify the location of Rhodes and the relation of that to seismic activity as well as the mention of incomplete sedimentary tracing (therefore the reported information should not be taken as 100% correct/accurate), and these two points fill in possible gaps that readers might have. However, I think it would be nice if you included a very brief explanation of what the Hellenic arc is and its part in the high vulnerability of Greece to seismic activity rather than directly linking the term to another Wikipedia page. --Mandychoi1013 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(P.S. - Sorry but I don't know why your references keep on jumping after my feedback. I tried to fix it to no avail...)

Mmcca44 feedback: 1481 Rhodes Earthquake
The additions you made showed the quality of research that you have done to edit this article. Your backing of historical evidence of seismic activity was needed in this article and added good references to this page. Your addition to the historical location of the 1481 Rhodes Earthquake was also a good clarification to the article. Your inference on the tsunami facts possibly not being true needs a bit more research to show that there is little evidence. I think it will be a great edit once you can prove that those facts aren't necessarily plausible but the dates are possibly accurate. Overall great edits and addition to the article itself. mmcca44

BCFeedback
The article selected is appropriate and interesting! The content added is solid, but be aware of how content is being incorporated into an existing article- need to maintain flow, use transitions. This will improve the readability of the article. I agree with your peers that some of the details should be expanded to place the information in context to what is known about the region and the disturbances. How do they know that the earthquake occurred at 3AM? Was this a metropolitan area? For the tsunami, it is stated in the Characteristics section to be minor though it reads to have resulted in major damage – why? Could you add a brief statement that addresses this connection? It is difficult to determine if your references are appropriate because they are not included correctly (this is especially an issue with Alpar). I highly recommend using the manual option to include all relevant portions of the citation. You will notice an editor, AManWithNoPlan has done this for you and should receive a “thank you.” BCarmichael (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Asteep1 Feedback: San Juan volcanic field
Your contribution to this article was not only substantial and needed but was well-written. I liked how you not only explained how the volcanic field formed but also elaborated on where precisely it was located. Good job finding the plagiarism and adding a source. One suggestion I have is maybe changing up the original wording so it is not an exact clone of the source. Also, I wasn't sure which sources you added were yours, but the majority of the sources seemed very strong and contained good information. There are a few grammatical errors in your edits such as missing commas after introductory clauses such as in "Around this time "," the activity changed to explosive ash-flow eruptions. I liked how you gave a specific example of a caldera in this field and elaborated on it. The only content level change I would make is trying to strengthen its connection to society such as the dangers to the region around it. All in all though, great job! Asteep1 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Kralph1 Feedback: Invasive Species in South America
Information about the non-native species' value to the ecosystem is valuable. My only comments are on grammar. To begin, your statement should read "South America is an important region for the world's biodiversity"; not "worlds biodiversity". In the next sentence, the comma following "Introduced species in South America," chops up the sentence; take out the unnecessary comma. Kralph1 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)