User talk:Smrose788/Personal Sandbox

There's a whole lot of information here, and a lot to work with. I would suggest breaking it down into some larger sections, instead of having a billion headings everywhere. There's also no page intro, and it does read a bit essay-ish from time to time. However, you did a lot of research and have turned out a pretty good product so far. Keep at it. Roverzorz (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how with the Transportation Revolution so many things changed. It became easier to travel, send mail and even goods got to their destination faster. I haven't read many articles on the Transportation Revolution. This one was informative and detailed. Christasia Wilson (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have great flow to your writing. My suggestion though would be to cut up the lead section into a few paragraphs. There is a lot of information in those first few lines and I think it would be easier to process if the ideas were separated a bit more clearly. Other than that I thought this was very well done - I really got a sense of the impace the Transportation Revolution had on early America. Maweeky (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information here! Maybe consider adding a concluding paragraph to the end of the article to give it a little more fluidity. If added, you can talk about the effects of the improved transportation and what else came about because of it in this last section. Chlouie793 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the breaking down of each section, that needed further clarification. I also like that you had a lot of in depth information and sources that could back it. ("24.238.107.11 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)")[reply]

This was really well thought out. The only thing I found that needed to be elaborated on was Matthew Carey. Who was he? In addition to that there were a few grammatical/spelling mistakes. In Economic Disadvantages, I believe the last sentence should read 'also, a few' rather than 'few' were never completed. Under Bridges '...unlike the roads'* failed attempt at* generating revenue...' In Canals: 'some of which were too*' and 'much more expensive*...' In the Railroads section, one of the dates is 184_. And finally, at the end you said they were built to meet present rather than future needs. Did you mean the contemporary needs rather than modern? That was the only part that was ambiguously written. Again, the layout was really well planned and flowed incredibly well. Good job! 155.247.166.29 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]