Talk:Coastal hazards

Final Wikipedia Project Evaluation (April 23, 2012)

Emplanning (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer Review Charles I would recommend using more pictures along the web page to help give a visual description of each major section to help the reader better understand the subject being explain. The Coastal Hazard section may need more text to give a better description of the overall definition of what a coastal hazard may be. There were only a few misspelled words and grammar errors that I found in the web page that need to be corrected or changed. The flow of the web page article was very nice and very easy to read. I think that each section has been organized perfectly in order. Each section presented has a sufficient amount of information which is helpful for a reader that has little or none knowledge about coastal hazards. The web page seems to be done as a group instead of each person doing their own section.The group had plenty of respectable and reliable sources. I though your project was done very well and research thoroughly with just the need of a quick look through. Great job guys.

Peer Review Sarah Hello, guys! The article was pretty well organized, and well-written. In the introduction, it may help to explain some of the acronyms that have been used, as well as possibly providing links to those Wikipedia pages. Some of the sentences in the introduction are grammatically incorrect, and could be re-worded to flow better with the rest of the paragraph. There are also some grammatical errors throughout the body of the article, and more information could be useful for the Coastal Environments section. Your references look great, they appear to be reliable academic sources. Your article content consists of relevant material, and is very informative! The key problem that I noticed was really the grammar of some portions, overall you guys did a great job!

Sam082008 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review William Overall, I think the article is good. The Information provided in the article and the references provide a very good overall understanding of coastal hazards and the policies and programs developed to reduce them. The organization of the article to include both what the coastal hazards are and the different policies and management and planning aspect of coastal is good, however I would suggest putting coastal hazards and environments before the policies section because it would highlight what are coastal hazards then transition into policies and programs that developed to reduce the hazards and protect the coastal environment. Also, I would suggest combining the definition of coastal hazards into the introduction and placing the introduction above the contents box to better highlight what is in the article. You guys could also add some case studies to the case studies section or just get rid of it and I would suggest have a separate section for the external links at the bottom of the page. The introduction is very well done. It goes over the impact of coastal hazards on people and goes over how officials can reduce the hazards to coastal communities that are shown in the subsequent sections. The sources gather are very good. The content of the article is also goo. However, I notice while your group lists the different types of coastal hazards it seems you focused more on hurricanes than any other hazards. I would suggest using case study section to highlight other hazards outside of just hurricanes that cause economic loss and damage. You could include nor'easters because there are a number of events that create problems up and down the coasts of the US. Haven stated ways that might could improve you article, your article was very well done.

--Wpace3 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much for all the details and thought put into this response, it all sounds like it would make our page more organized! --Margauxbk (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Emplanning (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Matt Hey guys. The page looks great! glad you got a picture up, that adds to the page. First thing, in my opinion the first little section seems slightly awkward and somewhat unecessary. Maybe either expand on it to explain better to someone who is completely unfamiliar with the project what it is; or don't include it at all; or incorporate it into the introduction. But this is just my opinion, doesn't have to do w/ the project requirements. In the Introduction, it should read "Due to this",' certain polices..." and I don't think it grammatically makes since to just throw the policies in at the end of the sentence after a semicolon. it should say "for example," such as," or "certain policies (i.e. FEMA, NFIP, CZM, etc.)..." The sentence "Short term solutions versus long term solutions; dune, sea walls, etc.." is not a complete sentence and I don't think you need two periods (not sure). In general I think some of the info in the first paragraph of your introduction, mainly after the sentence "Due to this...", seems like it could be reworded to make it seem more like your explaining that you will later discuss these topics and why they're important to the subject. As it's written, it seems like the end of that paragraph is just some of your topics being thrown at the reader randomly. As far as the content, the Policies section is well done. I would only suggest that you add to the section by explaining exactly how these policies are related to coastal hazards. Maybe provide examples of how the policies are utilized and just elaborate on their use. Right now it seems like they're just summaries of the policies, well written & concise summaries, but it would make them more relevant if you add just a bit about how their used. For Coastal Environments, I thought this was a very cool section to have. I learned from it. Two improvements: (1)Have a source for every environment b/c you probably got the info from somewhere, and (2) maybe provide an example of where each is found. I agree w/ a previous suggestion of moving Policies to after Causes of Coastal Hazards. It just makes more since there and then you can lead into the Management and Planning section easily. In the Management and Planning section it is repetitive to have another summary of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Instead of say Coastal Management is becoming more "popular," you could reword it to say something like being implemented more. The only other suggestion is that the intro of this section ends abruptly. It would flow better if you ended with stating all of what you were going to talk about next and why. You started off good and I understand why your going to talk about what follows, but to an outsider the start to get an explanation and then it just stops and provides one example. I think you have plenty of sources and they're organized well. No irrelevant content. Only other thing is you only have one internal wiki link. Overall a very good article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moym11 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Emplanning (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To Peer review:Matt

we have wayyy more than one internal link. --Margauxbk (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Midterm Wikipedia Assignment Comments

Kings Group:
Article structure is well organized. Excellent work in putting together citations for the article sections. The assignment did also include identifying 5 internal Wikipedia links that could be used in your article. That part is missing and should be included as you work on your article. I am looking forward to the first draft as you guys flesh it out.

It seems to me that your group has good collaboration going between the members. Your article outline reflects this, so it is great. Although, REMEMBER, the next part of your assignment will be graded individually, so make sure that everyone logs in and does writing on Wikipedia.

(Emplanning (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

Student Section

Hey group, I was wondering if any of you are free tomorrow at all before 3, to see if we can meet before the weekend?

(Emplanning (talk) 2:48pm, 3 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxbk (talk • contribs)

I just got done with class and I am free to work on it and meet before the weekend starts. Or we also could meet before its due on monday say sunday night to get everything finalized before its due. Or maybe tomorrow before we all leave for easter?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCaryEMP (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we wanting to meet in the classroom today to tie everything together or in the library where we met last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCaryEMP (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coastal hazards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cornell/uscode/text/16/1452
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323233623/http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Rules/cama.htm to http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/rules/cama.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)