User talk:Dacr348/sandbox

Welcome to my talk pageDacr348 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDacr348 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to give feedback on this page because your work is blending together and it's hard to figure out exactly which piece of work I'm supposed to be looking at. I'm going to focus my comments on the combined section, and I'm not going to address a specific person with my comments. Colbuendia71 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you've mentioned to me before, your work has been largely about moving things around rather than doing new writing. One recommendation I would make as far as media goes: let's see if you can get a picture of Sherron Rolax getting frisked. I did a quick Google search and it seems to be out there. Check out what kinds of rights there are for the image. As far as language goes, beware of phrases like "At Camden's peak." What does peak mean in this context? I also understand your impetus to talk about positive changes, but I would be more circumspect. That seems to me to be a neutrality issue. Colbuendia71 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of your section headings is inaccurate: "Pre- and mid-WWII: 1900s to 1950s." The 1950s would be considered post-war. Colbuendia71 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for eds and meds. Colbuendia71 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the talk about the Camden 28 belongs where it is currently located: it's an entirely different kind of crime than the other types of unrest mentioned. Just a thought. Colbuendia71 (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your concerns were addressed. Eds and meds was quoted not because it was a quotation, but because it was signifying that its a phrase. I removed the quotation marks to avoid confusion. Sherron Rolax pictures will definitely be looked into. I understand that there are some phrasing issues (you specifically mention "At Camden's peak"); I've already made mental notes that these phrases need to be changed before "final" release, and in-fact some were already changed before you left your comments. Probably should remove or move around some pictures. Why is the Riverline picture in the middle of unrelated information? This is more of a self-note for later, but it is really irking me. Scary Ghosty (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that if you want to see my work independently from dacr348's work, you can still go to my sandbox. I keep my sandbox in-tune with the combined work section, and add to both this sandbox and my own whenever I have a new addition. Scary Ghosty (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

So, I think things are going just about the same for you as they are for me. First, I noticed that things are reordered and that's great, because you can't add anything new if you don't know where it goes. Second, I see most of your attention has gone to the 19th Century and First Half of the 20th Century sections. Specifically, I'm really glad that you mentioned Campbell's Soup, because as the actual page stands now, the field named after Campbell is mentioned more than the actual company, even though the company has had a much greater impact on the city (I would hope anyway).

Starting from the top and working down: 1) The Early History section is blatantly taken straight from the source without proper quotations. I'm not too concerned though, because you mentioned in the last class that you also noticed this; therefore I know it's not your doing. However, as our instructor pointed out, it IS your responsibility as an editor of Wikipedia to fix it. 2) In the 19th Century section, I noticed you took out a whole paragraph that didn't have any citations. I have mixed feelings. The information that the paragraph contained could be useful if placed in the proper part of the page and if there was hard evidence (a citation) to support it. However, I think you made the right move removing the paragraph for now. It was unspecific and had no spine; it was just tossed on the page. 3) Still in the 19th Century part: Perhaps consider moving the part about Camden being a part of Gloucester County until 1844 to another spot. Right now it just seems thrown in. 4) Thank god you cleaned up the Industrial History (or as you now have it labeled, First Half of the 20th Century). It was a mess. That being said, it doesn't look like you've touched any information here. I would suggest making this the next section you (or I) work on. It really needs the love.

In general, I think you have neutrality down-pat. Out of the sentences that I can tell you added, they seem not to imply any one stance; rather, they are hard facts, which is what Wikipedia is about. As far as noteworthiness goes, there are a few concerns I have: The sentence which ends off Early History seems to just be there, without any relevance. Maybe this and sentence about Camden appealing to create Camden County would go together; both talk about how Camden came to be Camden. While I like the section about Campbell's Soup, again I feel like maybe it should go somewhere else (EDIT: I've been reading and re-reading this section, and I can't decide if I like where it is or not. So, I guess leave it if you can't find another spot). I'm not really sure where, though... Regarding the horse ferries, or team boats: I don't think naming the two specific ones the page does is necessary. There are some other minor issues of noteworthiness, but they are all in sections which you haven't touched yet. Just as an example (I won't harp on it): "The Fairview Village section of Camden (initially Yorkship Village) is a planned European-style garden village that was built by the Federal government during World War I to house New York Shipbuilding Corporation workers." - so what? Why do I care? Look out for this kind of stuff as you move on to other portions of your project.

Scary Ghosty (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To start off, I think it’s a good idea that you kept the old sub-section structure within the history section for the most part; it’s chronological, which is fitting for a section on history, and is titled clearly so that it’s obvious what the section will be talking about. While I think it’s good to get rid of the “Industrial History” sub-section, more should be taken from tat section and dispersed throughout the history section; not necessarily information already on the Camden Wikipedia page, so additional research might have to be done on that. More information should be included about Camden during WW2 as well, if you can find sufficient information. Also, maybe the years leading up to the war and the post-war years, though that could simply be in a “WW2 and post-war” section or a more general “Second half of the 20th century” section. I think either, or both, could work.

I found a few minor and easily fixed problems in the “19th Century” section. The first two sentences (“For over 150…Philadelphia area” and “But that…19th century”) should be combined, as the second of the two is just fragment. Just being kind of nit-picky, but remember to add commas after the dates in the beginning of the sentence in paragraphs three and four of the “19th century” section (i.e. “Until 1844 Camden was a part of Gloucester County” and “Between 1870 and 1920 Camden’s population grew by 96,000 people due to the large influx of immigrants”). Like I said, just a minor punctuation issue, but it’s important to remain consistent throughout the page, as in other places you did use the comma (i.e. “From 1899 to 1967, Camden was the home of New York Shipbuilding Corporation…”).

Most things were kept well-balanced and given the amount of text appropriate for that topic, but I think a little too much space is taken up for the horse ferries/team boats. It may be beneficial to condense that paragraph down by combining certain sentences or cutting out information that may not be needed. Also, if you do add more about WW2, I would move the “Remarks from FDR” picture down to that paragraph/section, where it would be a bit more relevant (I think it’s a really good picture to have though). You seem to be doing well with keeping a neutral tone and finding good, reliable sources, as there isn’t one that you’ve relied too heavily on. Mac147 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early History

I think this might be a place to focus in your next round of edits. Right now, it feels like a really sudden move from "Fort Nassau" to Camden without much sense of how it happened. I do understand that you might not have a ton of time to research this, however. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century

"For over 150 years, Camden served as a secondary economic and transportation hub for the Philadelphia area. But that status began to change in the early 19th century." These sentences strike me as a bit more vague than they could be. I understand that you explain further as you go, but when you say the status began to change, there's not much sense of whether it changed to improve or decline. Also, a sentence like "She ran from the foot of Cooper Street" is probably not edited sufficiently from its source: referring to the ferry as "she" on Wikipedia is probably not the best idea. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Half 20thc

I think some sense of why the city's fortunes declined in the 30s could be useful here. Would also give you opportunity to link elsewhere on Wikipedia: what other cities declined at the same time? Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Generally neutral and most elements possess some degree of noteworthiness. I will say I think there are further opportunities to expand, especially in the first half of the 20th century. For example, I think there's a lot you could say there about the war effort during WW2. And, in the 19th century, you could at least mention a bit about Whitman's presence. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PEER REVIEW 2

I’m glad to see that someone’s redoing this section! The entirety of your new version holds way more appropriate information as an opening section for a non-biased city page and presents it all in a cleaner, more structured way. I do, however, think that there are a few things you could cut out of the second paragraph. I don’t think the second sentence necessarily needs to be included, or it could be incorporated into the third sentence. So something like: “Other companies, including the New York Shipbuilding Corporation and the Victor Talking Machine Company, opened their operations in Camden at the turn of the century and helped Camden move into an industrial economy”.

Also, while the paragraph flows very well, consider breaking the second paragraph into two, smaller paragraphs. You could possibly do this after discussing the European immigration to Camden or maybe after the sentence concerning suburbanization and the drop in population, before transitioning into talking about crime and civil unrest. I liked how you mentioned the riots and wrapped up the second paragraph – very well done. The third paragraph was well done too. You nicely tied in Primas, the prison, and the pollution issues without anything seeming out of place or over emphasized. It might be a good idea to change the placement of the final sentence of your new material. You could place it at the beginning with the other census information or incorporate it into the second paragraph when you mention the decline in Camden’s population.

This is a very good opening section for the page. You did a nice job mentioning things that were necessary for the section and weaving in useful information from Camden’s existing opening section, leaving out extraneous information that would not have been needed. Mac147 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review II

So overall I would say that your the intro section (your new material) is good. There are a few things (both positive and negative) I want to bring your attention to:

1) I agree with @Mac147: that the intro really needed to be redone. Your new version provides a much better overview and is not taken word-for-word from sources. I also agree that it is extremely well-structured (with a few exceptions; we'll get to that in a minute).

2) In the second paragraph (the big one), there isn't any citations until about 3/4 of the way through. Is this because all of the information is from the same source (source [1])? If all of it is from the same source, then that's okay. Otherwise, something needs to be done.

3) Thank gosh you finally found the name of our mysterious "Puerto Rican motorist"! It does the page (and him) justice by providing a name. I remember you saying that it took some extreme digging, but where did you end up finding it?

4) Still talking about your second paragraph: it is super long. However, where Mac147 said to split it... maybe I disagree with that. I think instead, you should beef-up or combine some of the 1-2 sentence "paragraphs" that you have into larger ones that are on par with your second paragraph. If you look at other cities on Wikipedia, their openings are typically 2-4 stocky (but interrelated and cohesive) paragraphs. So instead of splitting your large paragraph, combine the others and make them large as well.

5) Your third paragraph talks about the first attempt at renewal, but not subsequent ones. I know that I'm currently working on the list of further renewal attempts, so I won't harp on this. Just remember that once we add my new 21st Century section, you should add attempts at renewal in the 21st Century following this paragraph (or even make it the second half of this one paragraph).

6) Your fourth paragraph seems a little lacking, but I know that that's mostly because you didn't have a lot to go on (the Camden page is pretty bone-dry, besides saying that crime is a problem). I also take issue with these three sentences being grouped together. I understand that they all are dealing with political themes, but the three sentences here don't seem really related to me. Maybe there is a better way to tie them together?

7) Your next "paragraph" (really two sentences) also seem disconnected to me. Why are they together? The operation of the school system and police department don't have anything to do with the poverty line in relation to the city. Try moving these two sentences around to different locations and observing how they mesh with other things you've written so far.

8) Last paragraph: The crime stuff does need to be outlined no matter how negative it may sound, so I'm glad you're presenting the information. One of your sentences starts with "representing..." What is going on with that sentence? I think some of your work may not have been saved.

Like I said, overall this is super good. The whole intro needed to be redone, and I'm glad you took on the task because I think if anyone could've handled the mess that it was, it is you. We've discussed a couple of times the fact that you want one important sentence or idea from each section, and I think that's a great way to go about patching the intro up. I also remember you mentioning that you've been investigating other city pages to see how they structure their intro and how long their intros are. That's another super good idea, and it seems to be working for you. Good ideas all around. Scary Ghosty (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section: I think you have a great start in rewriting this info section. I see that your partners commented on the need for splitting up one of the paragraphs, which I agree with completely. One thing I will say further, however, is that I think that paragraph goes too much into detail on the riots. Remember that the top-level section is for an overview of the page, and that section is a bit heavy on detail as it is. I think that your next paragraph could also possibly be two paragraphs as well: one about attempts at renewal and one about environmental issues. However, I do see why you have it organized the way you do currently, so I don't think splitting it apart and expanding it is required. I also think it's a bit uneven as-is, which I'm sure you recognize: I wonder if those last few single-sentence paragraphs should be expanded or somehow combined into a larger paragraph. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]