User talk:Mmcca44/sandbox

BCarmicheal Article 1 Feedback[edit]

Hi @Mmcca44: Your addition appears appropriate. You will need to indicate whether you located any instances of plagiarism and how you chose to correct it. On the article itself, be sure to indicate on the talk what additions you made and why. BCarmichael (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content added to this article is incorporated well and clearly explains the science. Improvement could be made by including an explanation of what happens to the ecosystem both in the lake and to the surrounding area. Are there certain areas that are more susceptible than others? Can any organism survive these events? The links provided connect this article with other existing WP pages. Citations are excellent! Be sure, though, that you include a link to the reference not just a link to EBSCO. Were there other details from those studies that could be incorporated? BCarmichael (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==CatcmcKinney Article 1 Feedback==

So overall the content you added is helpful to the article as a whole; something I think that would improve the article is to maybe reword and clarify the 2nd sentence of your 2nd edit, its hard to follow. Also maybe go into why the increasing methane is bringing attention to the lake. Maybe research why saturation can release gasses. The article has a lot of information and your edits I think have done quite a bit to increase understanding and specification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catcmckinney (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mhubbe2 Feedback: Article 2 - Tornado[edit]

Overall the additions and edits provide good information and are on the track to bettering the article. The article has a few places that could be edited to help even more. Something that could improve the article would be increasing the use of citations after sentences throughout the article. Also, with the first and second edits, maybe review placement and sentence structure to help with the flow of the sections (transition words could possibly help). Although the smoothness of some of the edits could be improved the information was great and allowed for a deeper understanding of the topic. With that, references were solid and the added link was beneficial. Consider checking grammar in the first sentence (pressure vs. pressured). -- Mhubbe2 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mtiggl1 Feedback: Avalanche[edit]

You did a great job adding a more clear description of the pathway of an avalanche. I agree that this is information that needed to be explained better to the reader. Instead of hoping that the reader will understand that the two words and ideas of “mass movement” and “mass wasting” are the same thing, I would add clarity on this idea in your entry to ensure that readers are getting exactly what you intend out of your contribution. I would check on whether it is grammatically correct or not to capitalize “Starting Point”, the “Track of the avalanche”, and the “Runout Zone”. To improve your edit I would reword your statement on that lack of consistency of the degrees of each zone so that the emphasis of the statement is on the uniqueness of the stability of the snowpack, and not on the lack of consistency of the degrees. Mtiggl1 (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Mtiggl1[reply]