User talk:Ortiz7913/sandbox

Article Evaluation
1. Food desert : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

One of the first things I noticed was the addition of different topics into the article. They were relevant, but they weren't exactly part of the food desert topic. They could of been mentioned in one of the subtopics, but not have it be a complete subtopic by itself. There were a lot of quotations with phrases from other articles, which is fine once in a while, but Wikipedia suggests to rephrase in your own words. All of the links seemed to be up and running. There was just one of the sources used that the article could of done without. The article was based in the U.S, and one of the sources used was a source from research done in Canada, the information might be helpful, but since it was focused in the U.S it would of been more useful to find another one source that offered similar research done in the U.S. I noticed in the talk page that there are some people who just want to edit out information because they don't believe any of what the article is saying and have done no research at all and just have comments like "This is such a bullshit topic lol. Made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.45.142 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2011" the person who wanted to edit a lot of valuable information out did not even sign it, and gave no help whatsoever, or any counter thoughts or editing ideas to help the article become better. A lot of editing was done for this article, and I think they helped the article look in better shape. Overall the article was informative despite the minor mistakes.Ortiz7913 (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Ortiz7913