User talk:Hfrankl/sandbox
Test ~ editing a page Hfrankl (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a lot of great and relevant content! However the way it's formatted right now is a bit difficult to read because a lot of the content is not weaved into succinct paragraphs (very possible you all are planning to!). Also, I'm not sure if some members have not yet put in their information, but areas such as Policy trends seem a bit slim. Kenneth701 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
There are some punctuation errors here and there. There is one citation that includes the link instead of an endnote. Are the subsections completed or is it still in the outline format? The topic is good and the subsections are organized, however the layout of the articles makes it confusing for the reader to follow along. It seems as though some of the subsections are not completed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeslee (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Overall, great topic! Looking forward to reading the final page. The formatting is a bit confusing and makes it hard for the reader to follow (understandable given that a lot of us are still adding to our subtopics). There are some sections that appear to be arguing for one side, for example the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Introduction". Maybe that only comes off to me, but possibly worth looking over it. Arianab914 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Seconding previous comments! There are a few extra words that aren't necessary in your sentences (i.e. second sentence). Citations should be included at the end of your sentence. Also looking forward to reading the other subtopic sections! Good job so far! Dianan.nguyen (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your feedback! Looking forward to implementing it into our work! Hfrankl (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Feedback from Garrison
editI could not find that this content in your sandbox has been published on the main space yet. Please do that ASAP! So, I read what you have in the sandbox and overall it looks really good. Please read through it again to copy edit, I noticed several small grammatical errors. You've done a good job starting to add links to other articles, but I think there could be more. Also, remember to go through other articles and add links to the Clean Power Plan article where possible. The citations look good. Are there any photos, graphics, or maps you could add to the article as visual aids? Keep up the good work! 209.129.89.6 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)