User talk:Eriggs95/sandbox

What are your initial plans for your article? Arrotramel (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to expand on the sections that are already created for Katherine Blunt, but also maybe create a section about her time at Connecticut College (and her work there) Eriggs95 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC).

Ruth Scott Sandbox Peer Edit
Hi Emma, I really appreciate the formatting of your article. The last sentence of your lead paragraph sets up an accessible and helpful format of "Local Involvements," "State Involvements," and "National Involvements." However, I would recommend a quick grammatical revision to that last sentence. The sentence reads now as: "Member, and leader at times, of many environmental organizations, Ruth Scott's involvements spanned local, state, and national spheres." The subject following the clause, "Member, and leader at times, of many environmental organizations" should be "Ruth Scott," but as it stands now is "Ruth Scott's involvements." As I said before, I like the the independent clause of this sentence and I think it's important to the flow of the article: "Ruth Scott's involvements spanned local, state, and national spheres." One other edit I recommend is changing "Having close ties to Rachel Carson during her life, Scott was an executive committee member of the Rachel Carson Trust for the Living Environment from 1965-1973" to simply "Scott was an executive committee member of the Rachel Carson Trust for the Living Environment from 1965-1973." As it stands, the beginning of the sentence seems to suggest some sort of nepotism, which by the context of the rest of your article, clearly isn't the case. I found this article extremely accessible because of the formatting you chose and the content itself. You managed to fit in a lot of really important information in a way that wasn't super overwhelming for the reader.

Krimany (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Kori Rimany

Peer Edit
Hi Emma! Your work is looking really solid on this page. You definitely have included a lot of in depth information, and I like the way you have organized the sections. My suggestions are: -you might mention Rachel Carson at the start of the second sentence rather than much later on (this would help with clarity as it is hard to know where the sentence is going) -possibly break up the second sentence into a few shorter sentences -try to speak more directly: instead of "having close ties to rachel carson during her life, scott was an executive..." try "due to her close relationship with rachel carson during carson's life, scott worked as an executive..." (Voicing like this is definitely more interesting in literature, but takes longer to get factual information across)

You definitely have done a lot as far as fleshing out Ruth Scott's page! -Moll Moll brown (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)