User talk:Rplace1/sandbox

It was a little difficult to review your article because other than one section, you did not specify what you had actually written yourself. I ended up just switching back and forth between your sandbox and the existing article, which worked, but just make sure you find a way to show what your contribution to the article is. I really liked what you did add. You touched on all of the important points necessary to explain what Mount Sinabung is and what effects it has had on society. I liked that you added the necessary "Ecology" section. I also liked that you edited the section "November 2013" to an actual paragraph, as its previous format did not make sense with the rest of the article. There are a few things you can improve on. In the geology section, I noticed that you repeat what type of stratovolcano Mount Sinabung is, and they are each different. Make sure to check on that and fix what is necessary. Besides that one issue and a few small grammatical errors, the main issue I had with your article is that you just need to add a little more. Especially with an already existing article, you need to show that you are making an absolutely necessary contribution by adding information and editing it to its full potential. Elaborate on the ecology of this area and dig a little deeper on the topic of society. Don't be scared to change up the already existing information and move sections around to better organize the page with the addition of your new information. You've got all your bases covered; just make sure you prove that your contribution is going to make this a much better article than it previously was.

Fmeyers30 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Brad Landry Feedback

Overall I believe that you did a good job. The sections that you added were filled with good information. It was a bit hard to find new contributions that were not parts of new sections though. I found the "geology" section a bit hard to understand. It does not flow very well and I believe that it would benefit from being re worded. I really liked the government response section. It was very thorough and it flowed very well. Quotations were left off of some of the quotes in this section though. You may want to consider adding government responses to other eruptions as well. This will provide a better overall picture of the Indonesian government's long term response efforts and add more content to the article. You may also want to expand upon the "effects" section and add sections like these regarding other eruptions. I do like how you reformatted the "November 2013" section. You made it much more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read. The "ecology" section was a really good addition and provides some good examples. If possible, you may want to find some more examples that are specific to the Mount Sinabung region. Your article may also benefit from some more external links. It would also probably be best to clean up the references section. Look up how to include "named references." Including these will allow you to cite information to one source more than once and will greatly clean up your references section. I think you have a pretty good article going with some nice content and just a few minor issues. BradLandry (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from Dr. Becky

Your peers have provided good feedback to help improve your contribution. I agree with them that the contribution is small and lacks support of citations. This topic has the potential to really be expanded. Evaluate carefully the organization of information and look at transition of ideas. Provide links to WP pages and external links to allow the reader to explore the topic in depth. Some grammatical and spelling errors occur. Finally, make the connection to ecological effects strong. Consider how some of the native species may recolonize the area- could they be adapted to such disturbance events? This has real potential! B.J.Carmichael (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)