User talk:Isabellahicks/sandbox

Reviews

From Rhiannon Ballard:

Overall, I enjoyed this article! I think it was very well researched and well-written. Good job! There are only a few things that I would improve on. For the section headings, only the first word needs to be capitalized, so instead of "Science Behind and Likelihood of Event" it would be "Science behind and likelihood of event". In section 1, there's a sentence that says something about the "largest and deepest" and I had to read it a few times to figure out what you were talking about, so maybe explain that one better. For the Possible destruction section, maybe you could add how and what kind of damage can be experienced. I also think that sections 4,5, and 6 could be combined into one large section with mini headings. My last thing is that I thought you used the words "most likely" and other phrases like that a lot. It makes it seem as if you're unsure of yourself and with the amount of research I can tell you did, I know you must be sure! Overall, I really liked the article and good job! Rhiannon ballard (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Review- Shyrece Celestine

I think you did a really great job. Honestly, nothing jumped out at me as a major concern. I think you covered the necessary aspects of your topic and arranged them quite well. Your writing style was easy to understand and the information you included seemed pertinent. It wasn't difficult to get through and I think that's an important aspect for a wiki article. If I read it later and happen to find something new I'll let you know. For now, I think you've done very well.

Shyrece.C (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey again. I only have one thing to add. Wikipedia has a page for Mount Breckenridge, so you can embed the link into the name. That's all! Shyrece.C (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from Dr. Becky

This is an interesting article! Your writing style is clear and conveys ideas well. Improvement can be made by addressing organization of information and developing the ideas further. As the reader, it left me with many questions. Also there needs to be a clearer connection to the ecological aspects throughout. Evaluate each section for missing information and connections between sentences and paragraphs. Additional references are needed to support ideas in all areas. I suggest looking at the what the current references cited for additional sources as well as the researchers- perhaps they have a website that would provide valuable information. Also look at duplicated references- this may be a coding issue. Section header format needs to be fixed. Use the suggestions provided by your peers. Overall, I think you have a good start to the draft and will be able to develop it into a fantastic article. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)