User talk:Cherrytamato/sandbox

Comments from Rosie on the Proposal:
This proposal is very good. Such excellent preparation will make the rest of your task much easier. Don't forget to take some photos to include on the page. And can you find (or create) a simple overview map showing all the greenways? Please put a link to this sandbox on your User page. Rosieredfield (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes from Cherry and Wasin:
The section for Central Valley Greenway was copied and pasted from a pre-existing Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Greenway Cherrytamato (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Karly:
The draft is well organized and well written. The introduction is an important aspect of the page as it makes the topic clear. The sections are ordered nicely. When I checked the map for copyright, I noticed the creator mentioned wanting a "free use rationale" added. I'm not sure if you've looked into this. But the addition of the map is important for this specific material. When I looked at "what links here" I noticed there was only your user pages listed. But I also did note that you mentioned what pages you wanted to link your page to in your notes section. I see that you added photos as per Rosie's request. The only other criticism I would offer is adding more links to other pages within your text. For example, when you mention the Fraser Valley, perhaps there is a Wikipedia page you can link to. It might be helpful to those looking at the page who are not familiar with Vancouver. Great job. Kzoup (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hannah:
It's unclear where the images are from? Did you take the photos yourself? Is there copyright? Do you have permission to use them? I'd like to see more reasoning behind the benefits. Also, it looks like your sources are coming directly from the city of Vancouver site, I think sources are supposed to be from third parties. I like how you've broken the page into distinct sections and have common subcategories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahxxx123 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lauren
I learned a lot from your page, I didn't know what this was before. The information is good for the draft. Can you expand more on the lists you made? What do each of the steps involve? Some more information about the environmental impacts would be beneficial too. I liked that you explained where this is too and when all the different sections were built and open. Are there any future plans for this? Any expansion plans in the works? Great job. Laurenensworth (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Miranda
Your page is really well done. I found it very informative and easy to read. Furthermore, I thought that the page was nicely organized in a logical manner. Looking at your sources noticed that almost all of your sources are from the Vancouver municipal website. If possible, it would be great to include some more sources outside of City of Vancouver to provide more variety. ''Additionally I noticed two minor spelling mistakes under the Comox-Hemlcken section in your bullet points. For example, in your first bullet artist is missing an "s". In your second bullet point I think it should be have and not has, so the tenses match the rest of your wiki page.'' Overall I really enjoyed your article, it was a great read. 2001:569:7A30:9400:6176:3EF0:12EF:1EF7 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie
Again you've done a very nice job. The reviewers' comments are excellent - implement as many of them as you can.

* Say 'still under development', not 'in progress', and say 'in the consultation phase'.
 * The Lead section needs to clearly explain what a 'greenway' is, preferably in the first sentence.
 * I agree that it would be good to find some more diverse sources. Are there newspaper articles that aren't based on City of Vancouver press releases?  Maybe about an unexpected problem or concern,such as about how to use the Arbutus corridor?  Try Googling Vancouver greenways and going beyond the first page of results.
 * How well do these greenways connect with adjoining municipalities' greenways?

Rosieredfield (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ruth

 * I am not sure what means.
 * Introduction should state clearly what The Vancouver Greenway Network is in the first sentence. Is it a building plan, policy suggestion, white paper...?
 * - Reference needed. In fact lots of things in that paragraph need references.
 * Number 7 reference should come straight after here.

Important Issue - neutral point of view
RuthVancouver (talk)
 * I am worried this sounds too one-sided, it does not have a neutral point of view (see Neutral_point_of_view) so might not get past the Wikipedia bots who delete pages that don't meet this requirement.
 * Some rewording will help i.e. to "Proposed benefits", "remarkably" is a biased word- just remove it. You also need to find and include more independent sources as nearly all your sources are from the city of Vancouver website Identifying_and_using_independent_sources.
 * What about criticism and oppression to the plan? I know there was lots about the Arbutus Greenway and the point grey cycle path. This has to be included i.e. []. Include a whole section for Criticisms.
 * If you don't fix these issues the wikipedia bots will just delete your page. We have had a few pages where this has happened! But this should be reasonably simple for you to fix.