User talk:Oklamert/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The organization of the article edit is very well placed and put together. You can clearly see the objectives and accomplished work that has already been done to the article. The main purpose of this article edit from what I read is to correct and add information on incrementalism, while bringing to the page some pros and cons. The pros and cons is a brilliant idea allowing for the reader of the page to better understand incrementalism besides just reading the definition section, it gives the page a more in-depth approach. Also the examples using the Austin area example is a great idea to make many people interested in the page. All together I love the edits that you have done to the page so far.Gonzales5064 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The points that you are adding will contribute very well to the article the pro and cons section is a very nice addition it will show the readers the goods and bads Of incrementalism. I love your example section using recent events to have the reader better understand incrementalism as well as using Austin and its districts I did not realize that they were broken down into 10 districts I really like that and it helped me to understand and gives the reader away to relate to your article. Your sourcing was good as well every point you made was backed up with a reference and you used mutilple sources to have a variety. You also did a great job of presenting the facts there was not a single part that showed any type of bias on your part at all. The article was very easy to read and was interesting like I said you were able to relate it to me. One thing would be if someone was reading this in another state they might have a hard time relating to the article because they are not from Texas. But having said that you using Austin was probably my favorite part because it related to me personally and helped me to better understand. RERoyal (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

1. •	The lead section gives a quote that relates to the term incrementalism, but could be further explained. •	The key points seem to summarize and cite local or city examples of situations that object to some form of governance, but I’m not sure if they relate to the topic. Then again I may be looking for examples of the topic on a national level. •	There are adequate contributions citing examples, but perhaps a better example of policy change or implementation that imposes or apposes incrementalism can be cited on a national level. 2. •	The article does focus on incrementalism •	The article does include one citation of scholarly support 3. •	The article could use another perspective when citing the Pasadena example, perhaps a perspective that was for the change and why they were for it as Hispanics were against it. •	The tone is professional and appropriate •	Distinctions can be clarified better with a simpler sentence sturcutre 4. •	There are claims with supported references, but they must be cited in the Wikipedia format. •	The article needs a few more references to show different perspectives and sound concise and clear. •	There are a few value statements that do not sound neutral in last paragraph of the example subsection. If citing an example, one must take a neutral approach and tone. 5. •	The article needs more support and a better explanation of how “ incrementalism” applies to the examples cited. I’m not sure if local Austin or Pasadena districting are formidable examples of incrementalism. Are these examples of implementation or opposition to incrementalism? •	Opinions are avoided to some degree •	There are some assertions, but they are cited from a quote. Some assertions are not –“ In some ways, these boundaries are now a good thing; they are enabling separate and equal representation unlike ever before” •	History is fairly short with no fundamental examples, more of a description of the origin of the word and not necessarily how it is applied or used. Pros and cons is fairly short. 6. •	Entry is good for a draft, but could be revised. •	Sentences can are well constructed in certain parts, but could need work with assertions •	No misspellings, but punctuation needs to be addressed with comas and sentence structure. •	The information is accessible, but needs a better and more simple explanation of the sources or examples that are used in the text. •	Simple enough language is used, but ideas can be formatted better. •	Article structure is good with headings and subheadings •	Paragraphs can be structured a little better and organized to convey a clearer understanding of incrementalism or examples of incrementalism 7. •	Articles titles are good, section organization is good, hyper links need to be added for certain terms –Charles Lindlom, Supreme Court, Austin, Pasadena. 8. •	No images included Question 1: The article does a good job of citing examples, but does not explain how it can be related to the topic of incrementalism. A better explanation can be given to give and understanding of if the examples are for or against incrementalism. Question 2: The article could cite cases of legislation on a national level that effects all citizens of the United States by acknowledging social or public policy. An important example would be raising the age of Social Security benefits from 65 to 68 to 70 to 72. This is a necessary step to ensure that this social entitlement program will last for a few more decades. Changing the age requirement in one swoop would not be approved or popular, but change must come in increments so that it can be successfully communicated and implemented. Djac88 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)