User talk:MeghaneyAnderson/sandbox

Choose a topic feedback
You've got some great possibilities here! I have some individual notes for each and general thoughts below those.

Tallboy: There is a lot of opportunity for history to be added here--the "details" section could probably be broken up into a "history" section and a "defining characteristics" section (or something along those lines...looking for well-developed articles about other specific pieces of furniture would help give ideas for how to add to and develop this one).

Birkenstock: It surprises me that this article isn't already more robust! I think you make a good point about some of the phrasing being biased/unsourced. Depending on what sources you find, you might consider adding sections about their rise in popularity, how/why/when they branched out into more than one design (if they even started with only the one design? I could be making an assumption there), and any changes in the company or product (changes in ownership, changes in headquarter location or where the shoes are made, moves from privately held to publicly traded, that kind of thing).

Oregon City Municipal Elevator: This seems like it would be a fun local one to add to, and the Oregon Historical Society almost certainly would have some good information about its history and the various work it's had done over the years. Some of the information here is also clearly outdated (mentioning that a video event is going to run until 2015, for example), which could be tweaked into more appropriate language.

I don't see where you've noted what specific additions you would make for these articles or added initial research results for them, which might be the best way to narrow your choices. Which one offers you the best range and quality of possible sources with new information? If you find that you can locate good lists of excellent sources for more than one, I would suggest reaching for the one that gives you excellent sources and that you have the best plan for how to improve and/or are most interested in/curious about. Nicoleccc (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article draft feedback
You have some very good additions in this draft to the "Initial Elevator" section, and in spot-checking sources, it looks like you're using them well (and the citations/links are working beautifully)! As you continue to expand and edit this material, some things to keep in mind are:
 * There is still so much potential for additional material here. I'm curious what other information you've been able to find and what you will still be able to incorporate in your work over the next week, either in the "Initial Elevator" section or in other areas of the article. One specific thing that stands out to me as possibly an easy reach for expansion is the phrase "delayed by politics." This little trio of words is so juicy it could potentially even become its own article section ("Controversy" or something like that). What was the opposition to the initial building of the elevator? What political forces were at play to delay it being built (or being finished, or opened to the public)?
 * There are some statements from the existing article that need citation and don't currently have it (an example is the dates and success of the levy and the power type and time of the original ride). If you have encountered this information in your research, adding citations to this existing article content would be helpful.
 * It would be good, once you've completed your additions, to give all of your edits a careful proofread. One example of a current spot that could use some rephrasing is: "Located at the top of the elevator was a catwalk that extended 35 feet across that connected the two sides." It's not clear what the two sides are sides of...the elevator itself? The elevator and the top of the cliff?

Let me know if you have any questions as you continue expanding and editing this material, and I look forward to reading your final additions! Nicoleccc (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
The section you worked on (Initial Elevator) was done quite well and I do like the additions that you made. A couple of sentences that may need editing are: "The elevator opened to the public in 1915, delayed by politics." - I would suggest either removing the second half of that sentence or rephrasing. "When the elevator stopped working during the ride passengers would have to exit through a trap door that had a narrow ladder where the residents would climb down to safety." - This is a bit of a run-on sentence, I would suggest rephrasing or possibly breaking it up into two sentences. Fisaowen (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Janelle's Peer Review Hele Mai (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Great job editing! The additions you made to the article were in my opinion spot on! I didn't know anything about the Oregon city elevator and it was neat to learn the history of it. You made the article much more informative than the previous content. Your additions made that section of the article more balanced and gave it better structure. As for critiques, I only have one. In your first sentence you wrote that the elevator was constructed in this area. I had the question of what area? Side of the hill? Oregon City? Otherwise, awesome job!