User talk:TheEagle18/sandbox

This piece is relatively neutral and well cited. However, the language used in some instances are questionable. For example, you use a lot of slashes which seem a little too conversational or casual for Wikipedia's standards. This can be fixed by replacing the slash with "and" and in the case of "Bayonne/New Jersey" that can just be stated as you had before in the paragraph. Another example is "the money that Camden was willing to shell out for the battleship." Reconsider using the phrase "shell out" as it sounds too conversational. You mention the Intrepid museum without stating that it is a museum. I suggest adding some note as to what it is. Also, I think this should be spit up into smaller chunks, not many just one or two more. I believe all the content on the page is noteworthy, but in your second paragraph, you mention changes to the pier. What kind of changes were needed? Was is just the length change in order to accommodate the battleship? If so, that should be made a little more clear.Al the Minotaur (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Eagle/sandbox
I think all the information and sources you have collected are good and relevant, but I think the appearance of the piece could be aided by breaking it up into smaller paragraphs. Specifically the first paragraph seems like it could be broken down into multiple, smaller paragraphs. I think separating the first paragraph into one highlighting the new rule of where the ship would stay, and then another discussing the public reaction to the decision would aid in the presentation of the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWSP19 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a great start to this project and much of this is ready to move into Wiki's main space. I think Al the Minotaur is right in saying that you have some informalities in the language, but that's easy to fix. There are also some sentence-level errors such as missing apostrophes that you should reread for. We've talked about your "big paragraph" problem, and I think that's kind of structural issue: the order that information comes in feels a little scattered, so maybe revise for clarity and you'll find some places to break that up. There are also some sentence-level clarity issues: I'm not sure what "The ship needed 35 feet of clearance in order to fit, and the excess supplies going to the National Park in Gloucester County" means. I think there are further opportunities to expand information for this page as well: there's not yet any sense of what one actually does when one visits the Battleship. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your work continues to be strong in terms of tone and style, however your exhibits page need a bit of description. It's a bit bare bones right now. Also, is it possible to find more information about the volunteer processes, as in why was it merely a volunteer position instead of a paid and trained job. A minor qualm, but I suggest instead of saying that people were "not pleased" or "not happy" you should say that they were "dissatisfied" or "disappointed." The sentence, "The commission decided that the Navy will decide where the battleship will end up," sounds a bit awkward. I would change "decide" to "determine." Lastly, in your second sentence of the first paragraph, instead of "swapped" maybe try "exchanged." I want to reiterate that these nitpicks are due to an overall strong page. Al the Minotaur (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the tone used matches the Wikipedia style well, and the language is all neutral. One change I would consider making would be to expand on the "Renovations" section. It would be useful to give a short summation of what L3 and Lockheed Martin do, to give some context of why they were able to help. For the "Donations" and "Exhibits" pages, bullet points would be a good format. Additionally, because you're working on a page separate from the Camden page, I think it would be ok to give short descriptions of what the exhibits are, and possibly when they were introduced.

This is a well-researched and sourced entry that is just about mainspace ready, which is clear because much of it is already up there! My primary concern is the section on exhibits, which feels a little thin at this point. My recommendation for expansion would be to add some details to each of those entries, describing what they are at the very least. Colbuendia71 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)