User talk:Isaacschley/sandbox

Isaac,

I think you did a great job of laying out all of the important information to know about in the ethnic studies program at the Tucson school. I do think that you need to consider the structure of the article and how you want to lay out the information. My suggestion would be to have an introduction/overview of the case, how the controversy began, the response to the controversy, both from the school members/students and the state government, the outcome of the house bill that banned the class, and then the appeals process that is going on now and any other instances that have occurred since. I think this layout would help your reader get better access to all the information that you are giving out. I was really interested by what you started talking about on how the controversy got started and I think that if you fleshed out that incident more, it would be beneficial to the article. Also, add a little more information about the appeals process, which I think you are planning on doing based on the asterisk that you included after the sentence about the appeals, so thats great. For some grammar, I left ideas on a google doc and some comments on where I think you might want to wikilink and add more citations. There are spots where there are missing citations, and because Wikipedia is so concerned with proper and adequate citations, you will want to add them wherever you can. Overall, I think you have really complete knowledge of the situation and will end up being presented in a great, comprehensive way! Here is the link to the google doc that I used to edit: https://docs.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/document/d/1K4OvtXgVtMShHtbBJlnNlUC-xqkYEORTA2eq9d5SCq4/edit?usp=sharing Shirshorn (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)shirshorn -Sarah H. Shirshorn (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)shirshorn

Isaac, I agree with Sarah and you did an excellent job covering a lot of the information. Once you figure out the structure of the article it will all come together and make it more coherent, A more concise and clear layout will give the reader a better understanding of the chronology of HB2281 and how the appeals processed worked at multiple levels. The background information was well said and there was no bias I could detect, instead you just laid out the details. I left more in the doc that I shared with you but overall very well done. Good luck with the rest of the article. Chrismulterer (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)