User talk:Dev JLap/sandbox

Citation assignment feedback: Looks good except the second statement isn't properly cited. Colbuendia71 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely written but some of the info doesn't feel notable enough to be on Wikipedia, specifically in my opinion, the bike part. AAAHHHHH (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about companies (ex:Lockheed Martin, Holtec) you tend start each sentence with the company’s name. That is really only necessary if you need to differentiate from another company mentioned in a previous sentence.SpaceFerret (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are places where the language can more concise like "has decided to go forward" to "decided to". There's some suspicious comma use that could be taken out. I have to agree with ahhh and say that some of this does not feel notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I think you should mention who gave Camden these tax breaks in the beginning. I think your pattern of writing mimics Wikipedia enough for it to be on the main Camden page.Dancingdancingcrazy (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a really solid start here: it's well-researched and detailed, and the amount of information you were able to find was impressive. It's also generally well-written, and I think that, by and large, it's almost ready to go onto Wikipedia's main space. There are a few places where your verb tenses need to be revised since there's a mix of present and future, especially in the Holtec section. I would add a bit of the criticism of these redevelopment projects where you can: there's little sense here that these were controversial things. I also think you have a great deal of potential in the failed redevelopment section since there's a long history of that, starting with, at the very least, the failed City Centre project that left much of the city razed with nothing built in its place. Colbuendia71 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image that you have is a good addition to the Camden page. I noticed that you posted your 7000 characters already, but people already seem to be editing it back. I agree with Travis that you should add criticism of the redevelopment projects. "The community center also contains" should be contained. "Holtec is slated" was slated. "Holtec has no obligation" had no. Everything else looks good to be on the Camden page, which you already did, so congrats! Dancingdancingcrazy (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the photo. The way it’s framed along with the description makes it extremely easy to identify the different buildings.

There is still an issue of starting each sentence with the name of a company when the subject hasn’t changed. Otherwise your grammar and sentence-structure is great.

Though I didn’t mention it in my first peer review, I think you did a much better job in incorporating information that didn’t seem as notable, such as the bikes.SpaceFerret (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with everything, both the actual writing and the way everything has been laid out. It's sequential and easy to read, and splitting up the failed projects from the completed and in progress projects makes things more understandable from a glance. Perfect to put up on to the Camden page.AAAHHHHH (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a little late to address this since you've already moved this to main space and completed your project, so I'll just concur with your other reviewers here, and say this is excellent work, well-researched and written. Colbuendia71 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]