User talk:SpaceFerret/sandbox

Citation feedback: Remember that these were supposed to be Camden-related and to be a bit of actual writing rather than just citations. Colbuendia71 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The content itself is good, just the formatting could be improved by ordering things by year, rather than the split up it currently has. Some of the topics brought up in 1 sentence could maybe be improved with a bit more detail. Also, some of your sources are improperly cited, so that should be addressed as well. AAAHHHHH (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think some of this information could go onto the Campbell's page not Camden's, especially in the Unionization heading. I would like more citations for this page. I think you could diversify your sources as well, they all seem to be from the Philadelphia Encyclopedia. The Cherry Hill Mall part is interesting, but feels like bias. I'm not sure where else you can go from here. Your post is well written and grammatically together.Dancingdancingcrazy (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The information in your sandbox is well researched and written well. I think this is an important part of Camden's economic history ad would fit really well with some of the redevelopment research to create a strong cohesive history of Camden's economy. A couple of small things that I noticed that could have been improved are lack of internal link (I haven't done research on if there are articles on some of these topics, but things like RCA should have some kind of internal link), the industrial decline section should probably be at the end of the history because it is the end of Camden's industrial history (unless that is supposed to be a bigger heading for the entire section, if so it should be a bigger heading), and I also noticed that there are some small errors with you citations which should be a small fix of adjusting some values to make sure they are Wikipedia compliant. 165.230.224.175 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got a really great start here in talking about Campbell's Soup and its labor history. I think this kind of information fills a huge gap in the content of the Camden page and maybe the Campbell's page as one of your peers said. I do think that there's a neutrality concern here: saying that Campbell's intended to seize control back from labor was probably true, but you're assuming motives here which doesn't work on a wiki page. There are other areas where it's clear you're taking sides. It's tough because I agree with your position here, but it's not quite neutral. I also think it could be a little clearer where particular pieces of information are coming from: there are few long sections without citation. Overall, this is great raw material that needs a little more shaping to fit in Wiki's main space. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your work looks really good but I noticed a few small things. One thing I noticed was the mall in "Cherry Hill Mall" should be capitalized because it is part of the name. Everything else looks good, but you might just want to have it proof read by someone who is better at grammar just incase. Once its read over it looks like it is ready to put onto Camden's article. Dev JLap (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I really like that you linked out to all the soups, it almost feels unnecessary, but I think it works. I appreciate the notes on where this information is going on the page. It made it very easy to visualize. Your work looks ready to be on the Camden main page. I think you should just double check your grammar and capitalization in some places. I think you should make your points more neutral. The Cherry Hill Inn part could use a citation as well. Dancingdancingcrazy (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

While the content itself is nicely written and kept with the neutrality necessary for writing on Wikipedia, the spacing and ordering of the content feels jarring and difficult to read. Since this is one major event, rather than splitting it up into Unionization and Industrial Decline, putting them together and organizing your paragraphs by date would make it a bit easier to follow. Also I believe you could combine a few of the smaller paragraphs as it would look a bit nicer. AAAHHHHH (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your reviewers that this is a well-sourced and researched addition to the page. The material on Campbell's is particularly well-written. I still have some concerns about editorializing in some places: there are still a few sections where it feels like you're edging just out of the neutrality requirement. Overall, however, much of this is mainspace ready. Colbuendia71 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)