User talk:Scary Ghosty/sandbox

If you have any suggestions for my current sandbox, please address me here! Scary Ghosty (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Testing out replies. Remember to play Dwarf Fortress, everyone! Scary Ghosty (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap up work on 'Second Half of 20th Century' so that I can move into 'First Half of 20th Century' and then to '21st Century'. Work on 'Second Half...' is almost "done", I think. Scary Ghosty (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Because you and another student are both working on the history section and working with material that already exists on the Camden page, some of my comments might overlap. Regarding the structure of the page, I think it was a good choice to stick with at least a similar layout to what preexisted, as it’s appropriate for a chronological historical timeline. I think using the bullet points is a unique way to display the information concerning the civil unrest of the time, but it may not be the most cohesive style for Wikipedia. It may be better to make it a sub-level section solely focusing on protests and civil unrest under “Second half of 20th Century”; if you plan to keep it like that, I definitely think it could work, but this is just another option to throw out there.

Something I mentioned in another classmate's peer review that is relevant to yours as well is that I was wondering if either of you had more information to include about Camden during and post-WW2. I think this could be something important that you guys might be able to add more information about or expand upon in a “Second half of 20th Century” section. Also in the same section, I think some of the language used could be changed to be more fitting to Wikipedia, and sound more neutral and formal, especially in the paragraph on the Camden Riots and to a lesser extent the lead paragraph of the section. The “21st Century” section is also a bit small compared to the other sections and I think they could be balanced out more sufficiently. I do have a question about one of your sources though, which applies to my page a little as well. When you cited Camden After the Fall, you cited it again each time you used a different page; in my sandbox, I only cited it once and included all the page numbers used on that one citation. I’m not sure which way is the correct way (or even if one is correct over the other), but I think I’s worth checking out. The addition of the “Renewal under Mayor Randy Primas” was a good addition because it contains a host of important information to Camden’s history that may not be easy to link together in a different way. Mac147 (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

From here on out I am only commenting on the Second half of the 20th Century section because Early history and First half of the 20th century look mostly unchanged.

You added a lot of information. In comparison to the original page this gives a more complete depiction of Camden’s history. The phrase “economic blight” is pretty biased. Maybe choose a different word like hardship or decline. These are still a little biased but according to dictionary.com definition 2 “any cause of impairment, destruction, ruin, or frustration” and definition 3 “the state or result of being blighted or deteriorated; dilapidation; decay” suggest that this word might be a little harsh. The first sentence in Second half of the 20th century is a bit of a run on with all of the statistics being given. I think a data table organizing some of the numbers might be beneficial here. It would also add media. If not maybe split this into two thoughts or just cut some of the information. Occurring side-by-side is a little awkward and it takes me out of reading the article. Also, plummet seems like a biased choice. o with something like declined or decreased. Avoid phrases like however and the use of colons and semicolons. Just make it a separate thought. Also “more promising changes” is biased. The last comma “the first noteworthy move in the process of adapting an eds and meds approach to renewal of the city” made me think huh? Clarify this and make it less biased. Words like “noteworthy” are highly biased when describing an event because they are subjective. Add a link to eds and meds because I didn't know what that meant at first.

Your fist bullet point belongs in the First half of the 20th century section because it occurs before 1950. I see that he died in 2009 but the date of the event for which a person is first mentioned should determine its placement.

I especially like the section you added about the riots. This section was sorely lacking. One thing I will say about this section is you should include the name of the “Puerto Rican motorist” because this is important and relevant.

The whole Renewal under Mayor Randy Primas section is really good. You need a citation after the direct quote in the first sentence. You keep using the word noteworthy, if you get rid of that word the sentence reads clear and neutral.

Include something about when Milton Milan declared bankruptcy for the city in 1999 (CATF Pg. 195) This could help you segway from the end of the 20th century into the 21st century.

In general the information and sources are all very good. Some notes that apply to all sections and I have mentioned a few already Avoid colons and semicolons. It is okay to take a few sentences to explain a thought or event. Avoid words like however because most times they are used they link two ideas and create a run on sentence. Pay close attention to word choice. If you think you have a good word to describe something look up its definition and you should be able to decide whether or not it sounds biased. Dacr348 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider reviewing the way in which you discuss the ways in which one event follows another. For example, these two sentences seem to imply a strict cause and effect relationship between the two mayors' tenures that might not actually exist: "From 1981 to 1990, mayor Randy Primas fought to renew the city economically. Ultimately this failed when Primas's successor, mayor Miltan Milan, declared bankruptcy for the city in July 1999." I think that your sectioning could also use a bit more thought: "Decline" seems a bit too broad and only has a tiny bit of information. "Renewal Under Primas" seems a bit specific and, either way, a bit generous to Primas. I would also take issue with including the Camden 28 under "Criminal Events:" while, yes, it was a crime, it wasn't a crime in the same way that the murders or riots were crimes; it was a protest. And, of course, the riots started as protests as well, so I'm not sure they belong there either. I'm just not sure it's a workable heading. One thing I see that could be addressed in the 21st century: the takeover of the Camden PD by the county. Colbuendia71 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW 2

I think it’s great that you added another section about Camden’s attempts at renewal (though maybe the names should be switched up, so it’s not repetitive?), as it’s a really important thing to bring up in regard to the city. In the first sentence (and paragraph) you don’t need to put education and medicine in parentheses, use those words instead of “eds and meds”. The second paragraph about fixing the Waterfront was very well done, with good structure and information presented. My initial reaction was that the last paragraph and the bullet points should come before the second paragraph, but after reading it over a few times, I think it could go either way.

Also, for the three sentences right before the “Attempts at Renewal” section, I think it could be a good idea to try and incorporate them into the “Attempts at Renewal” section, or to expand upon them/add more information. By themselves, those sentences wouldn’t really work great as an introduction to the section or as a cohesive section alone; if there are things already written that you could expand upon or information you could kind of fill in the gaps between the years with, I would recommend doing so.

I thought the information you added to the “21st Century” was really interesting and important to Camden’s current state. I would recommend adding a little more to the “21st Century” section, but overall I thought you added some really good work. Mac147 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Originally a city whose industry focused mainly on manufacturing, in recent years Camden has shifted its focus to eds and meds (education and medicine) in an attempt to re-stimulate itself. This sentence sounds a little funky. I think the subordinate clause is throwing me off. It sounds a little like two separate sentences that are expressing two different thoughts.

“Despite previous failures to transform the Camden Waterfront,” I don't think the failures to transform the Waterfront are mentioned on the page at all up to this point. Maybe consider writing a small section on the failures in the second half of the 20th century because the way you approach this it sounds like people should already have some knowledge about what you mean.

I really like the second paragraph. I think all of this information is good, reliable and relevant. You might want to look into the reaction from the community these plans are effecting. Coopers Grant Neighborhood Association might be a good place to look because they're being directly affected by these changes.

I like that the end of the history section ends on a positive note. The implication is that there is hope in Camden and thats very much in the spirit of this project. I think your tone and language are neutral but there is an underlying message of hope. Dacr348 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Consider issues of phrasing: "an attempt to re-stimulate itself" doesn't, uh, sound like what you maybe want it to. I do, however, really appreciate how deeply you dug in order to find some of this information. It's extremely well researched and informative. I really don't have a lot to say beyond that. This is solid and looks mainspace ready. Great work. Colbuendia71 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add on a second glance that the three "not touched" items at the top of the section should be touched: figure out how to fold them into what you've written or otherwise better incorporate them. They look lonely. Colbuendia71 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)