User talk:Shelbyer/sandbox

Group 25,

 I thought you guys did a great job with your rough draft entry. Excellent use of chronological structuring. After viewing some of the sources, they appear to be genuine and somewhat triangulated. 

 My advise on areas to improve:

• I can't tell if the first heading is the lead or if the lead hasn't been created yet
• If the first header is in fact the lead.... I would shorten or concise it. Leave in only what the research entailed. I would save the info and statistics from screening tests for another section.
• Just a suggestion... If you go in and actually make your headers a page title instead it will separate them more distinctly. It can also allow you to go in to the edit source and put either {{tacleft}} or {{tacright}} to line up your contents box on either the left or right side of the page so the article is more visually aesthetic
• Include a picture of the company logo and building maybe

- http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Green-Economics/2010/0309/Boston-and-the-National-Bureau-of-Economic-Research - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?form_name=journalbrowse&journal_id=1773630

To conclude: Again I thought you guys have a very interesting topic, your work is very clear and easy to follow. The information doesn't seem plagiarized or paraphrased, it seems competently put together. Besides the above suggestions I believe your group is on the right track.

Diego Espinoza 27 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Group 25, I'm Coral from Group 26. I really like your works, your draft shows that you have an excellent insight into your topic, and the structure is clear so your work is easy to understand. Besides, the sources you found are wonderful. My suggestions are somewhat alike Diego's, I think you could make your lead more clear, it's a little bit confusing. And have a more understandable structure in the "contents". If you want, you could add some other forms of contents to help your draft looks better, like images, charts, summary...etc. Maybe you could expand your work a little bit, like find some articles related to your topic that are interesting or worthy thinking about. Just some suggestion! Please feel free to comment back. KeLiao (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I thought this was a well thought out and well written page. The few things I would change is the heading for the first subject, the title is the same exact title as the article you are using to get your information from. It feels to me at least moderately plagiarized, but it's nothing to worry about too much, just an idea. Just a question as well, is there only evidence of Jim Crow laws recorded in North Carolina or would you be able to obtain information from other states as well? If so I would recommend perhaps added a few other states to more support the current repercussions of Jim Crow laws, if not, the section was written very well and should be left alone. All in all a very well done job on this topic. If you have any question please contact me view email, thank you!

- Liam Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Hughes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

This is detailed annotated bibliography, not an encyclopedia article. As a starting point, please review the Editing Wikipedia brochure. Let me know when you have something I can review.
(If you reply to this message here, please include {{ping|Ian (Wiki Ed)}} in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.)
Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ian, and thank you for your feedback. For our project we are adding to the existing page for the National Bureau of Economic Research, and updating the studies they have done in the "Research" section of the article. We are neither creating our own article nor updating a stub, but instead we are adding more to an already-complete article. That would be why the paragraphs seem so abrupt. Please let us know if there's anything else we can do to fix our submission. Thank you, Group 25 {{ping|Ian (Wiki Ed)}}