User talk:Sallyfried/sandbox

You can give the readers more content to read from, however it was clean and organized. This made it an easy quick read. Maybe adding more content will help--Dougsitt (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good start but you could write it in a more brief and distinct way. Your facts are very good your writing is just a bit broad which can be easily fixed. Larainal (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You could add more facts, but your writing is good and easy to understand.1oromo (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good factual writing and good use of sources. Charlieaabrams (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you did a really good job! I would just say to add some more links in your work so that what you are writing about can be easier to understand for the reader.Montananelson (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding a link to "the Paris agreement" would be beneficial. Also, what has the EU done to cut back on the green house emissions? What are the Doha amendments? Adding a link here would be beneficial. Adding links to many of the things you discuss can help give your readers some background (IE the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the European Union, etc) Maddywright (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You could include some internal links, such as the Paris Agreement, EU, and Kyoto Protocol. I like how you split your information into more paragraphs, because it made it easier to read. Caranlee (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph could be edited for structure. For example, the date of when it occurred is more general information, and therefore might be better at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the middle. Also, I think for the sentence, "At this point over half the countries in Convention, who were responsible to for over half of greenhouse emissions had ratified," a comma could be added after "emission" or after "at this point". Mtatherton18 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you could structure the first paragraph differently and for the last sentence in the first paragraph you should add something after ratified since it's a little unclear as to what is being ratified. --Ghurley1 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should go over the article and add more links to make it easier for the reader. Additionaly, three sources are enough, but not ideal. If you could add to your article pulling from more than those sources that would improve it.Samwolff450 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Good. I think some things can be cleaner like "Some requirements of this agreement are that" maybe switch to The agreement stipulates... "how much progress is being made." maybe switch to the status [or course] of national progress. Maybe add some subheadings differentiating the different frameworks. Links. "The Paris Agreement was brought up on November 12th, 2016." I don't know what you mean by brought up. If you keep "greenhouse emissions had" add comma after emissions, but would change or split to two sentencces or use a semicolon or something.Mlazarus14 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest inserting internal links to make text more clear. "Union's" would use EU´s - there are many unions. "important agreement" get rid of important - you are showing your evaluation. "some countries" - do you have a list, would be more specific. Barborale (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you did a really good job. You should add internal links (Paris Agreement, Kyoto Protocol, European Union, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP21) to make the section clearer for the reader. Also, I would suggest changing, "In this important agreement..." to "the goals of this agreement is..." --Dmastronardi (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)