User talk:1oromo/sandbox

It seemed too specific in some parts, i think you should give a background then dig in to specifics --Dougsitt (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence could be edited to make a better pointSallyfried (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit scarce. Your information is solid but you could word it differently to create a more concise and thoughtful piece of work.Larainal (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the organization of the topics you are working with. The last sentence should be restructured. Charlieaabrams (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of great information here! I would say to add more links within your paragraphs to page the Wikipedia page more connected with other pages. Also, maybe check if some of your sentences are a bit wordy- it might be difficult for the reader to follow along.Montananelson (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph needs some rewording, the first sentence especially, same with the first sentence of the third paragraph. Also this sentence, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the various gases that are straightforward to the noticeable light falling on the Earth from the Sun, however, assimilate the infra-red radiation (heat) produced by the warm surface of the Earth, keeping its misfortune into space" should be reworded or be created into two different sentences. You have lots of good information though. Maddywright (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely add links into your section, especially for science-based information such as Carbon dioxide, SNAP, greenhouse gas emissions...etc. You can't assume the reader will know information about these topics that you mention throughout. Rebxlee (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good but has no links. I suggest you go over the whole article and add links where you think the reader might need it. This just makes it a lot easier for the reader.Samwolff450 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You included really good information and it was easy to read, but I think you need a lot more sources in order to make your article even more convincing. In addition, you could include some internal links to help the reader understand more since this is a more scientific topic.Caranlee (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the amount of information you have, it may be useful to incorporate more sources. Internal links could be added. Also, I'm not sure if your first source should be cited in the header. Overall, I like your images and how you added a table of contents. Mtatherton18 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add more sources to the second paragraph so the reader knows where this information is coming from. You could also clarify whether the statistics in the second paragraph are worldwide or not since somebody might think that these statistics are just for one place or country. --Ghurley1 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content was good, but sentence structure and word choice were confusing and sometimes awkward. Specifically, the first sentences of every paragraph. I feel like word choice could be better to make article more clear and simple. "sequestered" "discharging vitality" "emanations" all don't really fit, even if they technically make sense. Some links would be helpful. Mlazarus14 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph I think that mixing Europe and EU in statistics is not accurate. "Except if it is caught and put away" caught where and by who?, be more specific, passive tense avoids this. 360 Million should million be capitalized? Barborale (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the content you put in the sections is good. However, the way some of your sentences are structured is confusing. You should also add internal links (some useful ones would be on SNAP, EU, Europe, greenhouse gas, etc.). These links would be helpful to the reader. --Dmastronardi (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]