User talk:Kzlotnik81/sandbox

Hi Kathryn! I like the way you’ve organized this topic to focus on the specific types of risks. There are a few wiki pages that discuss risk management/emergency preparedness, but your draft brings more detail to sections that are most often just listed. By breaking down the potential causes of damage (physical forces) it provides a great collection of resources to individuals involved with collections. It would be interesting to reference specific events that have documented each of the physical force types in museums/cultural institutions. This could also be an opportunity to insert a few images of damages caused by a specific type of force (ex. hurricane damage). In addition to the Insurance headline, you could list a few resources/outlets that inform professionals of sources that provide “free emergency” services like: https://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/disaster-assistance/emergency-phone-assistance Overall, I really appreciate your in-depth use of how you organized this topic, linking sources, and will be referring back to your draft to develop my article better in wiki! --KatyAleecia37 (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kathryn, Your article has a lot of really great information about risk management. One area I think you could improve on is adding in some internal links, and possible some external links within the text itself also. You have a few different sections that offer lists of items, such as kinds of damage, that have some vocabulary specific to your topic. This is where your internal/external links can help your readers that might not be familiar with such vocabulary do some quick research to fully grasp your concept. I also think that you could benefit from trying to edit your sentence structure to be more complete sentences. The information is good, and I understand why you wrote your first sentences under obvious headings the way you did, but for clarity, it would be better to include subjects in all of your sentences. Otherwise, it begins to read more like an outline than an article. Ambitious topic choice! There's a lot to cover, and you were able to remain concise and to the point. Annavlaminck (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)