User talk:Asteep1/sandbox

Good job on making sure the information on Werner Kurz was cited properly. However, like the other person mentioned in the feedback, it is not enough to just reword some of the words to correct plagiarism. Instead, try summarizing the information that was cited improperly.

Your information on the pine beetles was very descriptive and informative. It showed how Kurz's research tried to prove that there is a correlation between climate change and mountain pine beetles. You could add information evaluating the research on how likely is it for pine beetles to disappear by 2020. You could also try to add more research that Werner Kurz had done by finding more peer reviewed articles on his research.

Eyoo3 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your classmates have provided solid feedback. And I am impressed with your initiative to include a substantial contribution in the first go!

Overall, your contribution is strong. You identified a gap in the information, incorporated it appropriately and provided established citations. I am glad you went back and added the citations to each sentence in the chance they are moved. For the content that was taken verbatim from the employee page, we need discuss the rephrasing. Some of the terms are discipline-specific, so while you have made a good attempt to rephrase, it is important to direct the reader to the employee page and maintain meaning. For example, instead of “Currently, his research focuses on using forest land to its maximum carbon efficiency, reducing the impact of natural disasters, and managing forests.” I would state “The current focus of Dr. Kurz research includes examining natural disturbance impacts, effective forest management techniques, and how forest carbon budgets are influences by land-use changes.” (citiation) This restatement maintains the original meaning. BCarmichael (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with adding relevant information on the topic. I see you checked for plagiarism. Added multiple links and external references. Also correctly cited all new information.

To further improve this article you may want to look at some examples of when lava benches has collapses and caused cities to go under water. I see you wrote that the Hawaiian islands were formed this way, but maybe add more examples. You could create a new section for these examples.

You could also add a picture or two to improve the article. Overall, great job on expanding information on what lava benches are and how the formed, etc. M.miller (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall your contribution is very well done and adds much relevant and necessary information. The way you alternate between explaining the scientific cause of the earthquake/tsunami and then briefly breaking down the scientific terms you use is very informative and follows a logical order. You also use the Wikipedia links appropriately when using scientific terms that an average reader may not know. Your addition is incredibly informative while still remaining relevant to the article. The only issue I found with your addition comes in the following sentences "This water then moves very fast towards land until it approaches the shore, where wave shoaling builds up the height of the tsunami. This added height from the friction of the shoreline allows the wave to travel far inland wreaking havoc on communities. This tsunami, in combination with the earthquake, is responsible for the 71 deaths." There is a grammatical problem with your use of tense in these sentences. The rest of the article is written in the correct past tense, while in these sentences you use the present tense. This was the only grammatical error I found and fixing it would improve the flow and coherence of the addition. One last issue on your addition is the last sentence, "Events such as tsunamis cause massive amounts of physical and economic damage to regions such as Indonesia." This sentence lacks detail and is irrelevant to the rest of the addition. Overall your contribution was great and added immensely to the relevant information found in the article. Csmalls99 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]