User talk:Freeman.k/sandbox

=Cochrash_Freeman.k_P3=

Summary
Lion hunting is a current controversy. Lions are endangered animals. The decline in lion population is due to human-lion conflict, loss of prey and habitat destruction. Trophy hunting contributes to that, lowering the population directly and indirectly by killing primarily males. Those in favor of lion hunting argue that it raises money for local communities and conservation efforts. But there is little proof that this is actually the case. When Cecil the lion was killed a lot of critics pointed out that there is no proof of where this money goes and that lion tourism generates more money than does trophy hunting.

Major Points
This section seems relatively concise and well written. There are a couple instances where I think a more neutral tone could be used. Words such as 'significant' and 'important' should possibly be avoided. Especially in this case of 'important' where it could be easily re-written to say "some factors include..." I would suggest re-organizing the 3rd paragraph to put the last sentence closer to the beginning. The way it is written right now reads more like a persuasive essay rather than a factual essay. In the last paragraph the last 2 sentences don't make much sense to me, I'm sure there's something important to say there but I can't quite get the point - consider rewording this to make it easier to understand.

Minor Points
Anytime one reference is used more than once it shows up twice in the reference list and has a different number assigned to this. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix this yet, but it probably needs to be fixed. I'm not sure if the very first sentence is even necessary. The title of the section and the rest of the section itself explain that it's a controversy.

Summary
This proposed addition to a subsection of the lion hunting article details the effects lion hunting carries, as well as the controversies involved with legalized of lion hunting. The author briefly goes over both sides of the argument towards lion hunting (the arguments of those who advocate hunting versus the arguments of those who don't). A brief mention of Cecil, the lion who was killed is made

Major Points
The introductory paragraph of the controversy subsection is succinct and informative. The author does a good job in correcting the (currently) unclear writing, with more informative and concise composition. Notably, an unclear and slightly misleading claim was removed from the article and similar information was restructured for cited information. The author poses to provides a more clear and concise addition to the article at hand. The tone of the article has been adjusted to be much more professional, while also being just as accessible.

As a side note, it may be warranted to adjust the final paragraph as it contains more information on the problems associated with lion hunting. I feel it would make more sense for that data to be moved to the second paragraph, as it is in line with the argument presented. Perhaps adjust the final paragraph to be about how Cecil's death gave rise to an awareness of lion hunting?

Overall, a good encyclopedic improvement to a subject that doesn't get as much attention as well as a solid addition to a start class article.

Minor Points
The grammar, spelling and syntax appears to be fine. It would be interesting to see an interwiki link into Namibia, to give the reader an easier understanding of where in Africa Namibia is. The only issue I can find with the citations is the first reference that actually links to another Wikipedia article, even though there is absolutely no reference to lions within that Wikipedia article. From my understanding, this wasn't at fault of Freeman, but whoever first edited the controversy section. I feel as though it would be a good idea to find a source that corroborates the claim or remove it outright.

Marsh32 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)