User talk:JoyceCee/sandbox

Joyce, Your page is very interesting and I find the facts you've managed to extract from the news to back up your claims, fascinating. I have only one tip and its nothing to do with your information. I think the information is fairly adequate for the topic you've chosen and sheds light on the points you are trying to make your audience understand. The one thing found a bit distracting while reading was this run on sentence: "The Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding based in the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario at the University of Guelph working in conjunction with Oceana, a non-profit conservation group, sampled 1,200 seafood sample from 700 restaurants and stores which had been collected from 21 US states". If you wanted to word that better with some punctuation it would make it easier to understand as a whole.

"The Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding - based in the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph in conjunction with Oceana, a non profit conservation group - sampled 1,200 seafood sample(s) from 700 restaurants and stores which had been collected from 21 US states."

It's just a suggestion though!

Great job!

Sanaah

Joyce this is a really good topic! In fact I would like to see even a little more info perhaps about the how the agency started up and when. Otherwise it looks great. I really appreciated the section in how to avoid misleading food labels. Good job!

Anita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anibala777 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
Hi Joyce,

This was interesting to read as it is a topic that affects us all. In terms of content, I think you have done a good job in your research. I would include a little more about the CFIA as Anita has also pointed out. Possibly something about the history or origin as your page topic seems to be about the Agency itself.

In terms for format, I would suggest maybe putting a brief description of the CFIA initially, then more of the history and structure of the agency in the first heading. This seems to be more in line with the typical Wikipedia page structure. I'm not sure if a "how-to" versus "informational" section is what is normally on Wikipedia, however this is up to your own discretion.

A few sentences, especially in the first paragraph, seems to not read as well as it should. It might be just be some of the tenses and personal preference of the order for words, so this is just a suggestion. On your first point in the "How-to" section, there is a "n" after your period.

Overall, I definitely learned something new and really good work with the links. Keep up the good work!

Samuelhfko (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)