User talk:Hele Mai/sandbox

Article evaluation feedback
You make a number of good observations about this article! Your notes about one source being a dead link and another having been updated with information not yet updated in the article are particularly strong points. My only note is that it looks like this is a start-class article, which makes it a solid candidate for the "choose a topic" assignment, but not as good a candidate for the article evaluation (which should give you an opportunity to review and consider a more complete/better-developed article so you can see the difference between that and the stub/start articles you're considering improving). Nicoleccc (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Choose a topic feedback
Nice work on this! I see you applying a thoughtful combination of initial research with what you see each article needs to each of these options. Here are a few specific notes/thoughts I have on each of the articles you've linked to for this assignment:

Adult education: The banner at the top of this page gives some convenient starting points for an editor considering improving it, which can be helpful. I do agree that the text of this article is fairly robust already, although, if the topic is interesting to you, focusing an article edit on improving sources rather than adding large sections of text is still a worthwhile project.

Oswego movement: Visually, this grabs my attention as a good candidate for improvement right away because it's so sparse right now. There is definitely a lot of opportunity to expand this one (sections about initial use/development of the movement, methods of this teaching style, how it grew and then changed over time if it did change, and how/why/when it either declined in popularity or was replaced/folded into another instructional movement are all possible sections that come to mind for me). All of that said, though, if it's not one you're enthusiastic about researching, it may not be your best bet.

Water safety: This is a juicy article to work on because it needs so much work on so many fronts! Your dart-throwing analogy is perfect. The trickiest parts of this one might be focusing your editorial work on it to a couple of specific angles and making sure it doesn't start covering material that really belongs in a different article. I see boating as water rescue as focal points in your sources, which seem like good angles that don't already have cross-linked articles here. If this is the one that seems most approachable to you and it's an interesting topic to you to research, I say go for it! Nicoleccc (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
This is a strong addition to the existing article, both focused and robust! I see a good range of information in this draft, and good use of sources (including the reflist/citation links, although you will want to take another look at the CDC reference, as it's the only not quite linking right). As you continue adding to and revising this, some things to keep in mind are:
 * Organization. How you've organized this addition makes sense independently. Thinking about how it integrates into the existing article, I'm wondering if it will go under the existing "Education and training" section or if you are planning to replace that with your "Water safety education" section. If the latter, I don't think you need to repeat "Water safety" since that is the title of the article so should be clear, and I also think the sub-categories could be named without the repetition of "safety education" in each. So, "Pool", for example, rather than "Pool safety education".
 * Article lead. This is quite sparse currently, and could probably be expanded a bit to better represent the material already in the article. With your education-focused additions, some small changes to the lead definitely seem in order so that the education component is appropriately previewed in that section.
 * In the "Pool safety education" section in particular, you start by mentioning materials for both adults and children, but the focus and examples then become on materials for children (although I hope the bulleted list isn't entirely from the children's songs mentioned, given the point about drinking alcohol!). This could be expanded and clarified a bit to show the different focus in material for adults or at least an example of materials for adults before that cumulative list.
 * Consider purpose as you revise. In both "Boating safety education" and "Flood safety education," the opening lines offer a claim of value (importance) that isn't needed in this type of article. It would make more sense for an encyclopedia entry to start with clear information ("Approximately half of all flooding..." would be a stronger starting point than the introductory material in the first few sentences of the "Flood safety education" section, for example)
 * It is a good idea to proofread closely before moving your edits into the main article. This draft doesn't have many grammar or punctuation bumps, although one I would point out is that a colon rather than a period at the end of the sentence preceding a list indicates that a list is what's coming next.

Let me know if you have any questions as you continue adding to and polishing this, and I look forward to reading your final edits! Nicoleccc (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think you did a great job incorporating different ideas and precautions related to water safety. I was a little confused when starting your revisions, since "Water Safety" was the article you have selected but your article (I thought) was titled "water safety education". I see now that you are incorporating the educational factors into the bulk of the original. At least that's what I'm assuming? One thing you could add to the education section is floating classes that toddlers/ babies take! They are extremely popular and beneficial and teach toddlers how to float if they were to accidentally fall into water. I think you chose a really great topic with tons to work with! Kirstiehenry123 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Kirstiehenry123

Peer Review
I really like this article and think you did a great job with the draft! The sections are broke out perfectly and the lead gave a good grasp/idea on what the article is about. The references looked great as well. The only thing I might suggest is displaying more links in a couple places.