User talk:Cm20/sandbox

You should consider breaking up your draft into subsections. If you look at other wikipedia articles on topics similar to your own you should be able to find some good ideas for how to structure it.

MY main concern here is that you are not adding enough new information for the article to be no longer considered a stub. Looking between your draft and the original stub, you seem to mostly be expanding on to topics already present instead of new ones. I would definitely, first and foremost, recommend including a section regarding the founding and history of the APTA, as that would do a lot to help fill space and create a more cohesive and structured article. I'd also recommend, going forward, that you copy the existing stub and pace it into your sandbox, that way you can work on it directly, and see what it will actually look like when you finish with it and officially make your edits.

In terms of your citations, I don't see any dead links, and the information seems relevant. However I would suggest making the citations a bit more comprehensive, including page numbers or annotations to make it easier to find the relevant information. Furthermore I think citations 4 and 5 are a bit redundant. A single citation could have served for both bits of information you were trying to support.

Overall I think you have a very good start here, you just need to expand your scope before you start actually editing. I look forward to seeing your final product!JPKnight1997 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)