User talk:Rapidrider/sandbox

Nick, your overall structure is very clear and concise which is great for this wikipedia article. I would try and add some sub-headings to have smaller points to your article. Also, in this sentence "According to Jana Arsovska and Panos Kostakos..." these links to the two people are not working and it shows up as red. I know you have the citation at the end so maybe you can take off the internal link. Overall, great beginning! Carlapicasso (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Rapidrider -

I see that in your second paragraph you mention Europe, but Africa is also talked about in this article. I know we are not adding more information on Africa in this project, but you could look into what is already written and the sources used to add an intro part about Africa. I think it would be good to add to cover some main topics that are talked about in this page.

Also, looking at sentence structure, most of your sentences are very long having 2-3 per paragraph. I would look into varying the lengths and as we discussed in class be as concise as possible. You could also combine some paragraphs since they are short, unless you are planing on adding to them.

I find linking words to be very helpful, and see you have started that. I would do a bit more for things such as Transnational Organized Crime and armament.

I liked how you had bolded words that put emphasis on your keywords. Additionally, the hyperlinks were beneficial because it showed that you wanted the reader to get a full synopsis of guns. Additionally, the separation of the paragraphs was well versed, and your writing is clear and structured. Benitalukose (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Benita Lukose

Oliviaohearn (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick-

You do a great job here presenting your information to the reader. There is plenty of great information here from good sources. Make sure as mentioned above that you are being as clear and concise with your information as possible as this is a Wikipedia page and people should be able to see the information presented without anything else getting in the way. maybe see if you can bring some of your information together into 1 sentence. I see that you linked your information properly, and you actually presented an opposing viewpoint which is very nice. I also see that you might be planning to add a report done in 1999 which will add tremendously to the overall effectiveness of your passage.

Casey518 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Casey O'Connor

This looks really good! It looks more like a real Wikipedia page than any other sandboxes. It would be nice if you could combine some sentences into one. Bokyung0327 (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Great job! This reads very well, and I like the use of the picture as well as how you explained what arms trafficking was right off the bat so thet there was no confusion. Maybe explain what VBBS is in the last paragraph? Cbettica65 (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You did a good job! I liked that you used hyperlinks within the text and your description of what the Wikipedia will be about is very informative and well articulated.Awhite07 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Great job! The only error I found were the two links you used for the two individuals in the last paragraph! Miaeschlidt (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In the sentence that reads, "To keep track of imports and exports of several of the most dangerous armament categories...", maybe briefly explain why those armament categories are considered "most dangerous". Also, you may not need to link "rational choice theory" twice in the last paragraph. Fields18x (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nick,

I love your topic! However, I fee like all of the information and description is there. I feel like all of the information is crammed into one section. It will be great if you can break them into pieces. It will look much neater and people will be able to follow better. Great use of citation. Robertpark1999 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)robertpark1999

The article reads very well, but I'd recommend maybe splitting the RCT into another section so you could talk about the criminality of arms trafficking separately, as opposed to keeping it in with the main section. Rickyderas (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Very good page, looks very strong! I like your use of citations and linked articles as well as pictures. I would just say that it would look a little better if you fixed some of the structural issues on the page. Good Job!Henrykuv (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This lead looks very professional so far, the only thing I have to say is maybe try and transition into the last paragraph about rational choice theory as the section goes from very factual to the study of arms trafficking a little abruptly. Sophieb905 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation issues 4. Rothe, Dawn L.; Ross, Jeffrey Ian (2012). "How States Facilitate Small Arms Trafficking in Africa: A Theoretical and Juristic Interpretation". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2427762. ISSN 1556-5068. 6. Thachuk, Kimberley; Saunders, Karen (September 2014). "Under the Radar: Airborne Arms Trafficking Operations in Africa". European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 20 (3): 361–378. doi:10.1007/s10610-014-9247-5. ISSN 0928-1371. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey518 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)