User talk:Mjosifoski/sandbox

For the article, Bomb Threat, there are several things that I want to change. The article has a good flow of ideas, but I feel there should be elaboration on some points. For instance, instead of giving more "statutory" definitions of bomb threat, I can expand on the different types of bomb threats and what their intentions are. Their should be more attention directed to how bomb threats can be made, when bomb threats started being a major global threat, and why they are taken so seriously. The article mentions how most people would plan an attack like this without warning. I want touch upon why authorities take these threats so seriously even though this is the thought behind bomb threats. Headings and subtitles need to be implemented as well. The article is short and concise; if I create an organized layout of what I want to talk about, I can add more to the article without losing the clarity of what is being discussed. All the links are working, but I would definitely remove the first one referring to a song "Bombscare". I think it just makes you interpret the article with a less serious impression. Last, I would add a few pictures to depict differences in bomb scares. Maybe I can add pictures of well-known incidences and the perpetrators behind the incidents. I need to research on the different ways bomb threats are made and address these topics on the page.

Marimar Suarez's Peer Review
There are many problems with the article. The good thing is that many of the one's I thought about, you added to your proposal. The main problem that I noted is that there are no sections. Everything is written as one whole section. You have already mentioned how you would add sections and organize the information in a logical, clear manner. I would also remind you to focus on creating a good lead section. This section should only reflect the most important information having to do with bomb threats. It should not be too specific, it should just contain the relevant information. Then in the other sections, you add more specific information. Have you thought about what the title of your sections will be? It is important to review the flow of your article once you add the sections to see if the order makes sense. It seems that the articles starts with an overview of the topic, explains when bomb threats started to be a hazard, explains the consequences of causing a bomb threat in the criminal justice system, provides statutory definitions, explains how different places react to the threats, and finishes off with a code made in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the statutory definitions should be bumped up and appear as one of the first sections in the article. Additionally, I think that finding a way to connect the Northern Ireland code is important. To me, it seemed out of place. I understand why it is relevant but I don;t think that the way it is presented right now flows with the article as a whole. On the other hand, I think a good thing about this article is that it remains impartial. In my opinion, it seems neutral and doesn't favor a view point. I would keep that in mind as you write the article because the Wiki trainings emphasize the importance of remaining unbiased. Finally, in the part that it says "Many bomb threats that are not pranks are made as parts of other crimes", Wikipedia warns that there is a citation needed. Therefore, you should find source that supports the claim or a similar claim, or you should delete the sentence. I hope these suggestions were helpful! Marimarst (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Helen Rubio's Peer Review
1. I was impressed with the way you compromised with the existing contributions. I noticed from the edit history and your Sandbox that the article already contained information that was specific to the U.S. and WWII in the leading section. Your contribution did a great job of expanding on the article while keeping the last person’s train of thought. Even more impressively, you didn’t let that intro restrain your discussion. Towards the end, you brought it back (out of WWII) with talk of current attitudes and laws. Nice job! 2. You may want to consider providing your third source in a more accessible way. I can open the link but I cannot access the database that holds this article. The link for this source is also splitting the word “intent” in your second paragraph. I’m sorry that I’m not very good with formatting or I would have done it for you.

3. I think the most important improvement at this time would be the addition of an accessible link for source 3. This would help others evaluate how useful the source is too.

Helen.r (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Reviews
Hey guys! Thank you for these insightful comments. I wanted to bring something up that I didn't think I would have to deal with during this project: while I was making my edits on the mainspace, someone else added on to the article that was not my work. In particular, the snip about Northern Ireland was not my contribution to the article. Someone else felt the need to edit the article. As we all know, no one owns an article on Wikipedia. So perhaps that's why it was able to happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjosifoski (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)