User talk:Gdoman1/sandbox

BCarmichael feedback
You selected a good article for your contribution. The addition is appropriately placed within existing content and supported by reliable references. Links selected extend potential for learning. For the title of the heading, be sure to follow the style guidelines of Wikipedia- only the first word is capitalized unless it’s a proper noun. For content lacking a citation, were you able to locate a reference that would support those statistics? Were there preexisting conditions within this area that also influenced the fire season? Did the fires occur in populated or economically significant locations? BCarmichael (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

mandychoi1013 feedback: 2008 Damxung earthquake
First of all, I liked how you mentioned how the earthquake formed and how earthquake activity is increasing in the region. However, you should consider adding in the societal impacts (apart from the deaths) and economic impacts. Also, the first of the existing links has a "404 Not Found Error", the second link is for Chinese readers only, and the third link only has one sentence besides the headline. You should consider removing these links since you do not even reference them. P.S.- I know you probably do not read Chinese, but the 16:30 time you took out looks like it's pulled from the second source. It mentions that from the sixth (of October) at 16:30 to the seventh at 10:00, there were 211 aftershocks. One was above magnitude 6 and another was above magnitude 5. Mandychoi1013 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Mhubbe2 Feedback: July 2012 Beijing flood
The additions and edits to the article improved the article as a whole. One thing to look back at is the reference at the end of the first sentence in the version in your sandbox - it is not in the final version that is in the article. Also, the link for the first reference used for your information did not go to anything helpful (I assume it is linked to the database), but I was able to search the title and author to find the literature. Other than the couple of minor kinks, the additions were informative consisting of solid references, and good links. The plagiarism check was good and the explanation was thorough. Overall, nice edit. --Mhubbe2 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)