User talk:Larainal/sandbox

I feel that this was viewed in a one sided manner and that people want a neutral viewpoint. People prefer to read and make the decision on their own--Dougsitt (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is incomplete but is going in the right direction You could also be more specificSallyfried (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could word the fourth sentence differently and add more information about federal laws.1oromo (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of good information but only used one source. Sourcing more information makes the article more notable. Charlieaabrams (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have a lot of good information here! I would say to add some links in to your work, and to also make sure that your language is objective. Additionally, I would just check your sentence structure/ grammar in your second section. Otherwise, great work!Montananelson (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reword some sentences in the first paragraph, it needs to be more objective, what you have now may come off as bias. Your second paragraph is great! Maddywright (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could include some internal links, and I think adjust some of the wording you use in your first paragraph to make it seem less biased. Some more citations could also be helpful. Caranlee (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More internal links could be added. Also, even though citations are used effectively, the first paragraph sounds slightly argumentative, so I would add phrases like "some scholars claim" or "research finds that" so that your claims sounds less opinionated. I think a comma could be added after "First off" in your second sentence. Mtatherton18 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far the article is good. I suggest you should go back, look over the article, and add links to help the reader. There is a lack of links here, and links make it much easier for the reader. Samwolff450 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you keep your language neutral in your section. Obviously, you're talking about political action so it's hard not to have bias. However, your first sentence clearly represents editorial bias "There are many clear facts that lead to the fact that climate change exists." I suggest you say like Scientists have conducted numerous experiments and research that confirms the evidence of global warming/climate change.Rebxlee (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like first paragraph is very argumentative like you're trying to prove climate change exists. And also, instead of "Thorough federal policy is the only way that there will be actions" maybe say : Legislative action is one strategy that politicians are using to combat emissions or whatever. Then discuss carbon tax and the strategies. Better because there is actual data; like theres no doubt that human activity releases CO2 and other greenhouse gases. I was thinking "insure" should be ensure but I don't know the actual rules or if they are interchangeable. "Political figures have a vested interest in remaining on the good side of the public thus keeping up with protests is a way they can insure they have the public's wants in mind." This sentence is a little run on. maybe reword or split up, but either way try and avoid making the conclusion that politicians "keep up with protests" to please the gen pub.Mlazarus14 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would insert some internal links to help the reader understand the concepts. I would also consider going over the first paragraph to make it sound less persuasive.Barborale (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content of your section is really good. However, I agree that the first paragraph should be less persuasive and more neutral. Just watch the way you word your sentences in order to keep it unbiased. It would also be helpful to include internal links. --Dmastronardi (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]