User talk:Richydickies/sandbox

I think the article looks good! The citations/references and the structure of the article look good. Maybe you could add more information to the lead section of the article, such as information about its disputes with Chinatown leadership, to make the lead section a better summary of the whole article. You could also think about adding more information to the community outreach programs section if you find more research for that Hlo323 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sweet article! i think the structure is very clear and makes sense for the topic. you have a really detailed section on radicalization & TWLF which is great. i would consider using a different word than 'radicalization' in your section title because that isn't necessarily a neutral word, and more importantly isn't specific as to the political direction in which the ICSA shifted. besides that, i agree with huayu's comment that that lead section may be able to provide a more specific summary of the topics in the rest of the article. also this might be a small thing but i noticed that when you're talking about Chinatown in the context of this article, you're talking specifically about San Francisco's Chinatown. it's good that you hyperlink to SF's Chinatown but maybe think about clarifying that in some parts of the article. look at the wiki article for I Wor Kuen for example. another small thing, but in one section you mention Confucian Protestant ideals, which are two ethics i've never seen conflated before so i was just wondering how you arrived at that phrasing. overall great job! i feel like i have a good understanding of the ICSA after reading your article Kevinhouyang (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]