User talk:Tennantdm/sandbox

Peer review from Brownrs28608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmichaelsk (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Organizing well and the placement of each of the sections flow well throughout the page. The opening paragraph needs to be proofread for run-on sentences and grammatical errors. Has some strong points but needs to be rewritten for a strong argument. History- good information but should be written in less like a conversation and more like an academic article. I think watching out for run-ons as well as shortening the sentences to make them more precise will help. Good information about the recent lobbying activity. Organizing well but seems to be missing some information. The Bituminous coal problem- looks good but add commas to break up the sentences. Also watch out for repeated phrases like "At that" in the first paragraph. Cite the articles throughout the page using the wiki tool at the top of the page. Good article with a lot of good information, just needs a bit of proof reading by the editor.

Jacob Arrington (Jarrington30) Comments

I think that there are a lot of good things here. I think the history section is very good background and leads the reader into the more recent happenings in a smooth transition. I think it is smart that you added a little contact section down at the bottom, I would've never thought of that. I believe the page flows well and can be easily read other than a few grammatical mistakes that I've listed below.

Your very first starting sentence might sound better if it is stated like "The Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) was founded in 1950 by a variety of companies...." Also, in you next sentence think of saying "coal and mining companies" instead of the repetitive "mining companies and coal buying companies". I would consider changing the last sentence in your first paragraph as well, it doesn't read smoothly. Maybe I overlooked it but include what UMWA stands for. Use a : on the first sentence of "The Bituminous Problem" section instead of the , after "Industry". Jarrington30 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Jarrington30

Comments from Jeremy Johnson

None of your information has a citation going which each new fact stated, it seems like instead you just have a sources section at the bottom of the page. This prevents people from knowing where to look for each statement. While the sources are well-cited, and do not seem to be biased sources, they need to be added as links. I do not think that a contact section is needed at the bottom of the page either, some of that information could be included somewhere else if important, but it seems out of place at the bottom of the page. The lead statement is well done and seems to present an efficient overview of the topic. In the history section, you mention benefits, could some of these possibly be listed to give an idea of what kind? The table of recent lobbying activity is a nice addition, but the sentences following are worded in a somewhat confusing way. The "The Bituminous Coal Problem" is a well put together section. The table showing output in the earlier years of the industry is also a nice addition, but I think the title should be worded better to correlate it to the topic more clearly. The page is well done, other than needing to add the citations into to text and possibly making some of the topics more clearly labeled. I did not notice many grammatical issues either. --Johnsonjr9

Peer Review from Halee

Lead section: be more specific in the first sentence. Did the miners form this, or the companies? What companies are you referring to? Make sure you are citing information! Be sure David M. Young's name is properly capitalized. Who does he lobby to? Congress?

History: who are the certain companies? Missing citations. What are some important coal issues they are lobbying for? Some minor grammar/spelling errors, be sure to proofread before going live. Last sentence needs editing to be more concise. Maybe break it into two separate sentences.

Lobbying section: elaborate more on this section. Why is their lobbying efforts important? Who are they lobbying to?

Bituminous Coal Problem section: There is some plagiarism issues in this section. Revise it, remember the three word rule!

Overall: Make sure you cite things and your links work.

Ratcliffhn (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

comments form kaytlin

I thought overall the page looked good. I like the utilization of the table/chart, I wish my groups data required one. The sentence composition in the lead section is very choppy and diction/word choice could sound more academic for the final draft... "The main deal was even though some miners were being put......"

I also feel like the history section could be expanded to include more issues the organization lobbied for historically. Section is void of citations, Id include at least one.

I love the contact/address section, another excellent idea.

Again I would include more citations among all of the sections and expand on some thoughts. I feel like it is beneficial to think that you're explaining this to your grama and so include as much relevant information as you possible can.

Comments from Rebekah White

Overall I thought the article had a lot of good information but, there needs to be in text citations so that readers can see where the information is from. I would also recommend proof reading it because there where a few grammatical errors. For example, in the second last sentence of the lead section Young needs to be capitalized and the phrase "who still who is located" might need to be reworded as who is still located, to make it clearer. Additionally, the last sentences might flow a little better if it was rearranged as "the main representative and lobbyist". The history section is good but could benefit from some additional details maybe some more events that occurred or specific examples. The last sentence also just cuts short which makes it slightly confusing. I really like the tables provided they gave good clear data that presented really well. Your tone also matched what Wikipedia asks for and presented as unbiased. RebekahWhite (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)