User talk:Nmohnatkin/sandbox

UGBA 192AC Peer Review
Hey Nick hope all is well bro, decided to review some of your work.

Grassroots:
Original: "Grassroots movements and Organizations utilize collective action from the local level to affect change at the local, regional, national, or international level." consider removing "from the local level" or finding a synonym since you repeat it again at the end of the sentence.

Overall I love the new paragraph because you 1) define what grassroot movements are 2) define how they execute them and 3) the outcomes it produces. great job.

Your new structure for the article makes much more sense than the old. I like how you put history in the beginning followed by everything else. It allows the article to flow with ease and good job fleshing out some sections like with "use in sports."

I think the biggest issue with the article is the history section. I believe it is just a clutter of information, for example multiple paragraphs just list examples of grassroots movements which an easily be placed in their proper sections.

Bernie Sanders article: "I also plan to add topics regarding the inefficiencies of a bottom-up movement to the criticisms section." Great idea to have multiple POVs, helps keep the article neutral.

Progressivism in the United States:
I completely agree that this article needs to be seriously reorganized. I believe the second paragraph of the lead should be deleted, "Historian Alonzo Hamby defined progressivism as the "political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century."[2]. It adds nothing of value compared to the first paragraph.

The efficiency section shouldn't be carrying the "education" and "movements to eliminate governmental corruption" portions because there isn't a correlation between the section and those parts. If anything, the efficiency section should be towards the end too.

campaign finance
The lead to the article is too long and should be cut down drastically, also multiple paragraphs in the lead are not cited. The sections found in the article are all good starts but need to be fleshed out more. The idea of having a United States section is great, as well as linking it with Citizens United because it adds more recent news to the article. The sources you added to sandbox all have to do with Citizens United, which is perfect for its sections, however the rest of the article needs to be cited as well.

Great start and drafts Nick, cant wait to see how they turn out! If you need any help please let me know. :) HP2016 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Rachel peer review
Good organization of the article. Try to switch up your sentence structure - some sentences sound repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrfay687 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)