User talk:Elliespanel/sandbox

Overall, I thought the info provided was useful and to the point. The structure of the writing was good and it was easy to follow the ideas. It wasn't choppy or disconnected. One common thing I did see throughout the writing was having acronyms without defining what they were (which is hard because I don't if that's already done in the main article or not), but not doing this could lead to confusion for the general public who will be reading this article. Also, there were a few statements that could have been worded differently to be more objective. I think this will add meaningful information to the article and needs just a few minor edits. --Clh1806 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Good job! I think you included a lot of important information on the topic and the article was easy to understand and follow. I agree with Chelsea about defining acronyms, but you wouldn't need to if they are already defined earlier in the article. A couple changes that you may want to consider are reorganizing the section in the middle about OSHA and MSHA. I would keep all the OSHA information together and then the MSHA information together in separate paragraphs as to not be going back and forth to help keep it less confusing. Also, to help remain neutral I would maybe remove the word "important" when talking about the structure of HLPP.Marietta.mathis (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)