User talk:CherryBlossom918/sandbox

Citation feedback: You draw a lot from this source, which is good, but remember that you're pulling from the LAEDA site and some of this information should be verified by another, neutral source. Colbuendia71 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I would put some bullet points next to the opinions, just so it appears a little more organized. Maybe expanding a little more on each one, like adding some context as to when the quote was made or the reactions to it? Something could be added in regards to the pros and cons of the police department replacement, and maybe which department is preferred by the community, the outgoing or the new. How the Governor was viewed in the city after making the department switch? You did well keeping your own words neutral and wiki-friendly (Bertbert95 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

Peer Review
There seems to be some room to expand on this union contract mentioned in the beginning. The word generous is a little subjective. You also say November without a year, I would add the year to make sure a reader knows when this happened. The article says Camden is the nations poorest, I would cross check that with some statistics somewhere and make sure your source saying that is reliable. I would cite your opinions to know where they come from. I think working into the article that the views are negative instead of putting in parenthesis is a good idea. Your opinion section is almost a lot like bullet points as Robert said. My suggestion would be to work them as a paragraph and expand on the importance. The opinions seem to all be from law enforcement, people of the community or outside of the police force might have good incite on the topic as well.Tinm923 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to just restate what your other readers have said, but I think they hit the important points here exactly: there's a need for greater sourcing of this material and an issue with neutrality. The word "generous", as has been pointed out, is subjective: generous to whom? I'm sure the officers didn't think so and maybe others would agree. There's also a concern about timeline and verb tense: you say that "murders have risen again", but as of when? Remember that Wikipedia has a kind of "timeless" past that you're writing in, and you always need to situate your readers as to when your information is coming from. My major recommendation is to find more sources ASAP: where does that material at the bottom of the page come from? Colbuendia71 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
The word generous is still subjective wording in this piece that should be fixed. Just wanted to point out that the second paragraph after 2018 has two commas. It is good that you added another source but the bottom quotes are still missing their citation. The third paragraph has good information but it has no time relevance to the piece making it hard to tell when this happened. You might be able to combine the second and third paragraph if they happened together. The opinions tag should probably be a heading text style. At the very end you missed a " to end your quote. Tinm923 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The tone and syntax errors having already been mentioned, I would focus on getting the kinks with the citations worked out before adding more information. Trying to figure out what came from where after the fact may be challenging. I suggest again to try to find statements or examples of feedback about the switch from those that fought for it, like the Governor or the county. The tense is also a little jumpy, the "as of 2019" line can be helpful here. Trying to put the page in a definite chronological order may also help with its comprehension. (Bertbert95 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC))