User talk:Taylorbenton/sandbox

Feedback
Organization- it is organized well overall, but I feel like at certain times, sentences could be revised and reversed to make the paragraphs flow better. For example the According to the Bureau of Justice sentence seems to be choppy and may need to be better integrated into the paragraph. I think all your information is needed. You cover all the side of this topic and the people affected, but you don't take a side. Very neutral, which is good! Very well balanced in terms of negative and positive information. For the topics under controversy, the sentences bounce around a lot and are hard to follow at time. You should try and make it flow more directly, rather than bouncing around between views. You switch between tenses. Do these still exist or do they not? I love how you covered every thought about it from the color to the size of the space and why they are closer and better lit. There is a lot that isn’t cited that I feel like needs to be. You go multiple sentences without citing a source, and sometimes it feels like it is missing that, especially under the controversy sub header. You have an internal link to the year 1990, which seems confusing as to why you need it there. Your external links are very informative, and work well to help explain your topic. The article is super informative and interesting, with a verity if points of view. The changes I have suggested will be helpful in better supporting your article, with more citations. I want to add more points of view in mine now! Thanks for that! Tglori2 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Is each section's length equal to its importance of the section? Extra unnecessary stuff? Anything off topic? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? no Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? no Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? yes Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? yes What did they do well? external links What changes do you suggest? links to internal sources need to be better Most important thing to improve the article? links to internal sources

- I'm confused because the article jumps from talking about sexual assault to larger parking spaces for bad drivers. - The introduction paragraph about "Women's parking spaces" is short and random when reading the rest of the article. - "Surveillance" doesn't need to be linked - "1990" does not need to be linked under "History" MariaConnolly (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)