User:Pdenmark/sandbox

Step 4 : Critique notes

• -definition is eh--doesnt really explain the concept super well
• - source 2 cant find
• Does last sentence of first para even need to be there?
• 2nd paragraph makes claims with no sources.
• “Community gardening in most communities are open to the public and provide space for citizens to cultivate plants for food or recreation” awk phrasing.
• “A community gardening program that is well-established is Seattle's P-Patch.” changing to a well dev community gardening program makes it less passive
• 4 source cant get to
• First para of history lacks flow and kind of doesn't show as well as it could how it related to getting to urban farming
• Not a citation where says citation needed
• 8 and 9 source links don't work.
• Last para of history is fully an opinion and should probably be cut out, it would be used in perspectives as some people think that with a source, but it doesn’t work there because it is opinion and not history.
• Resource and economic and environmental perspectives have way too long of quotes that could be easily explained in ones own word and probably violates wikis plagarim rules.
• 11 source cant find article
• Block quotes vs non block quotes, what applies? (in food security)
• Why not quote marks in block quote?
• Weird quote in 2nd half food security
• Why sprouting jar in impact area
• Upa vs ua, need consistency--whats the difference
• 17 doesn't work
• 24 doesn't work
• Coherency of social impacts, last paragraph seems really out of place
• 26 link doesn't work
• 30 link doesn't work
• Reduction in ozone and particulate matter--could be written better, just general edits of making language sound better.
• Why need to separate energy efficiency from others below. Could all just be under environment
• Noise pollution section isn;t that well written either
• 43 wrong hyperlink
• Economy of scale could be incorporated elsewhere and the title makes no sense
• 50 link doesn't work
• Some of environmental justice doesn't seem like it really fits
• Last 2 paragraphs of implementation have no sources even though they make claims.
• Benefits and trade offs should be before all the examples especially since the examples take up more space