User talk:Mirandamoshayxx/sandbox

Comments from Ruth

I am not clear what you are changing. What here is your work and what is copied from the original page? It seems like everyone who reviewed this page thought that you had written the whole thing yourself, except the Montreal section.
"Links to Authoritative Sources Used" - I am not sure what this section is for. Surely all your sources should be authoritative?

RuthVancouver (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Improving the Vancouver section is a worthy goal, but I think you could be a bit more ambitious and aim to improve the whole Urban Beekeeping page a bit. In particular, the Intro section raises several concerns that people considering urban beekeeping would want to know more about. Rosieredfield (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cherry: I think that it's great how you found so many different resources for beekeeping in Vancouver, as I feel that our city is pretty ahead of the curve when it comes to allowing beekeeping in the city. I think that the organization of the page could be worked on, as all the headings are not separated into sub-headings, so it was hard to follow topics and sub-topics. In the table of contents, the section headings show that the sub sections under Vancouver and Montreal are their own sections instead of being sub-sections. On a note related to that, I feel that the two paragraphs about the Fairmont Hotels are redundant as they both include essentially the same information, so perhaps you can consolidate them into one paragraph. Finally, I think that the introduction to the page could actually be separated into two sections. One could be a general section that talks about the benefits of beekeeping, while another could delve deeper into the issues and negative aspects of beekeeping a bit more. For example, swarming was briefly mentioned but it was unclear why this was a concern. Diseases were briefly brought up, but I would like to know more about how urban beekeeping may help or negatively impact serious concerns such as Colony Collapse Disorder, as I feel that that is relevant to many people who've heard of the issue before. Cherrytamato (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments from Christine: I thought it was excellent that you included so much information that was relevant to this topic. I learnt a lot just by reading this page, as I previously knew nothing about urban bee keeping. I think it would be beneficial to break up the text of this page with some informative pictures, so that the viewer does not get overwhelmed by all the text. Having a lead section would also be beneficial. I am not sure if the paragraphs under "Urban Beekeeping" is the lead section. If it is I would recommend cutting down the amount of information, as it is slightly overwhelming. An infobox would also be beneficial. Perhaps a section on the different species of bees that people can have in their beekeeping endeavours would be helpful, along with some pictures of different kinds of bees. It is slightly confusing that the page is called "Urban Beekeeping", however you only elaborate on Vancouver and Montreal Beekeeping. If you are going to do those cities, perhaps focus on beekeeping in Canada, and then touch on the major cities of Canada. Perhaps by adding a section for Toronto Beekeeping? Also make sure you review the main section you have under urban beekeeping, as there are some grammatical errors. Such as when you say "A study by carried out by the AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research in the UK.[2]" - the next section starts on the next line with "discussion..." Im assuming this was suppose to be one sentence. I also think the page would benefit from linking to more internal sources on Wikipedia, however you have excellent usage of external sources. Christineanne (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Vivian

Nice page! I like the idea of beekeeping, I had no idea Vancouver had that many resources for it. Agreeing with the previous comment, I think it would be nice to break the page in section headings to facilitate its understanding for the readers. For example, in the begging you could break down the huge paragraph by having the first 3 paragraphs as the introduction and the rest maybe under a “history” or “background” heading, since you mentioned its history. I also think that adding pictures will help readers visualize what exactly is urban beekeeping and will look nice. I would also suggest maybe to have direct links for the different beekeeping services as many readers could be interested on it.

Overall nice work, I really learned a lot about urban beekeeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland Park - Surrey (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this page is very well thought out and very informative. This is a very important topic and you did a great job putting the facts down. There are spelling and grammar errors that can be worked out in the final paper. I also agree with the others, the first paragraph is a lot to take in at once, sub-headings would definitely help. Also something more eye-catching in the beginning could help draw people in to your topic. Re-organizing the information would assist getting your message across and I suggest putting the concerns in a separate sub-heading closer to the end of your document and not in the introduction. I also think some more information about the environmental impacts could help as well. Overall this is a great start for the final project and I think you have a great outline.Laurenensworth (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie

The reviewers' suggestions are very good.

I think the big challenges here are organizational: how best to integrate the Vancouver-specific information and now general information with the pre-existing information. I see that you've begun to make changes on the main Urban Beekeeping page - this is good.

Instead of using headings (boldface text on its own line), you could use in-line headings for the Vancouver and Montreal sub-sections. This would be more compact and also clearer for the readers. Do this for the Montreal subtopics too.
For the five 'Hives for Humanity' services, format the items as a bulletted list (each item with its in-line heading).
Don't quote the Unaf study, just describe their conclusions. And don't say 'are said to be' unless you have reason to doubt what is said.
'culinary cuisine' is redundant.

Rosieredfield (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]