User talk:Kkearn7/sandbox
BCarmichael feedback
[edit]Good catch on the uncited content. Do not just copy and paste web links. Instead reformat so the reference in in the appropriate citation styling. At least one of the references needs to be a scientific publication to support your contribution. The actual contribution needs to be more robust. What improvements to the warning system have been made? Any changes to ecosystem protection? Are these systems currently in working order? Have they been updated? Links are missing. On the article Talk page, you have provided your reasoning though can be more specific with the type of information added. For example, expand on the “information relevant to the aftermath section.” What specifically was relevant? Additions such as these will help elevate the quality of this article. BCarmichael (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
catcmckinney feedback
[edit]You added a lot of good specifics to the article but some of you sentences aren't cohesive. Ex: "Afterward these incredibly low tides, the water returned, reaching high elevations." It seems like you started one sentence and then turned it into another so maybe just edit that. The only other critique I really have is to use more scholarly language to make the entire article more cohesive. You did really well with adding details, adding the specifics of how many people died and the effects on villages was a good tie into societal aspects. Overall your changes were good and necessary to the article and minimal grammar and language corrections are needed.
Catcmckinney (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Csmalls99 Feedback: 1991 Bangladesh Cyclone
[edit]The basic concept of what you added, as well as your quality of writing, is solid. The article needed additions pertaining to how this cyclone potentially changed future Cyclone response and recovery in Bangladesh. Discussing societal preparation for future cyclones through the mention of shelter and warning systems, as well as touching on ecological changes Bangladesh implemented to prepare for the future were two good points that were previously uncovered in the aftermath section of the article. However, your additions lack intense detail and leave the reader wanting more information. For example, instead of just putting that "Bangladesh improved its warning and shelter systems" you could give the reader more information by detailing how Bangladesh improved their warning and shelter systems. This same problem arises with the second portion of your addition. Bringing up the reforestation program to stop flooding is good information to add to the aftermath portion of the article, but more detail on the program and how it could minimize future flooding would make your addition far more informative. Overall you brought up good information that the article was lacking, however more detailed information would make the contribution much better. Csmalls99 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)