User talk:Falgaia/sandbox

Gabby Domangue Feedback: Pangolin
Overall, I can tell you put a lot of work into this article by editing the grammar and cleaning up the entire article instead of just a section or two. However, the information edited and added was not clearly indicated in the user sand box. In regards to plagiarism, the detail you added about the gestation period was needed and works very well with the article. You also mentioned that you added citations, but it was not clearly indicated where you added them in the article. The sentences you contributed to the article add much more detail, especially the sentences about why pangolins struggle in captivity, which I think works very well and adds a very good point about conserving pangolin. However, it is never clearly explained in your sandbox where the sentences are added in the article. To improve the organization of your sandbox, create a heading for the section in which you added the sentence and/or citation and then place the sentence and/or citation underneath the heading. This will show where to find what you added while reading the article. Gdoman1 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York edits
In ARTICLE 2:

//Citation added for damage costs.

Under Immediate Aftermath:

'''//Consolidation of micro paragraphs into more cohesive arrangements, removal of an uncited statement. Relinked a broken citation to a new source that mentions the public health emergency declaration.'''

//Sentence deleted due to citation leading to a 404 Error and not being able to find a replacement.

Under Venue Closures:

//Sentence waived below stating that a full list of parks closed could be found on the citation at the end of the paragraph.

Under Transportation:

'''//Everything said here gets explained further down. Removed for redundancy.'''

Under Ground:

//A picture depicting a flooded subway tunnel entrance was removed due to this section already being very dense with pictures and a similar picture already existing.

//Deleted sentence here as a result of not seeing how it related to overall theme of the paragraph.

Under Events:

'''//Deleted section about events that progressed as planned. The hurricane did not effect these events, so I see no reason for them to be included in an article about the Effects of Hurricane Sandy. Cancelled and Rescheduled events subsections combined due to lacking enough substance to stand alone.'''

Under Evacuations and Rescues During Storm:

//Sentence removed due to being information later listed under Fires.

Under Damage:

//Fatalities section lacked content, and was thus removed and information was added to here.

Under Fires:

'''//Sentence here was uncited and not relevant to fires. Paragraph below editted to include more information from the source in addition to reading more coherently.'''

Under Political:

'''//Unnecessary quote removed and citations added, as well as cleaning up the section regarding the ad campaign to read better. Removed from Events subsection and given its own header.'''

Falgaia (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Jnune14 Feedback: Vajont Dam
It is obvious that you put a lot of time and effort into this wiki edit, and I think its great that you went out of your way to add an interesting twist to this assignment. You also clearly identified the article that you worked on and added enough information; however, I am still confused as to what you actually contributed to the article. You say that the part in italics is your work that you did, but the italics seem to stop a few paragraphs in. So what is the rest of the stuff that you have in your sandbox; more work that you did or what was in the original draft that was submitted? This could be more clearly indicated. Also, when I look at the actual "Vajont Dam" wiki page, the work you have in italics is not on there. Does this mean that you have re-submitted this draft and is just has not been approved or did you just not add you work to the wiki page. You did do a great job of adding links to many other wikipedia pages. I see that you definitely used enough sources since you added citations after your information, but since your references are not numbered I cannot tell which reference goes with which citation or if they are scientific. I'm not really sure how plagiarism come into play when you are translating and article from one language to another, but it seems like in the work that is in italics is put into you own words. Overall, I like your creative approach to this assignment, and I think you did a good job of adding valuable information as well as editing what was already there, but I think the area that needs the most improvement is clearly indicating what you have done in your user sandbox as well as the article talk page.Jnune14 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)