Talk:Great Lakes Areas of Concern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was part of the 1013 Project. It was originally created or significantly expanded by members of an introductory composition class at the University of Minnesota. Our work on this article ended on May 9, 2007, and we invite all Wikipedians to jump in with further expansion and revision. Be as BOLD in editing this article as you would any other Wikipedia article, but please be good about communicating your changes through edit summaries and talk pages. Students will check back on these articles in the coming months, and we can learn from the changes you make. For more information on the project, visit the project archive.
WikiProject Lakes
 Great Lakes Areas of Concern is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
An entry from Great Lakes Areas of Concern appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 May 2007.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Discussion: Andy

Kate, this is where I'll be communicating to you about your article. You can do vice-versa if you have questions or anything else to ask me about your article.

Footnotes and References

  • Footnotes
All of your footnotes are in working condition... except, I cannot see two of your sections in the article, though they are in the edit box... strange, yes. They are, Atmosphere section and Where are the AOC's section. What happened to them? I don't know. 1013-andy 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I fixed it. All of your footnotes are completed and up to date. No need to worry about them anymore. 1013-andy 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • References
  • Questions
Okay, so I just wanted to let you know that you're going to need a Reference section in your article. As of now, you only have the Footnotes section. Both are necessary. So yeah, if you could just list your references and give me as much information about those references that'd be great. (For example, such as author, website URL address, Date you visited the website, Date the website was published, what the name of the article is, name of Internet company that you found the article in... of course, sometimes one isn't able to find all of those... but just getting as much as you can is what Hacker suggests.) Don't worry about getting them in the right order. I can do that. If you write down the info, I'll clean it up. 1013-andy 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kate... alrighty so I

  • re-formatted your References section so it is updated and all correctly formatted.
  • Your periods have now been placed "in front" of the ref tag.
  • And the last four sections (Footnotes, References, See also, and External links) have been alphabetized according to Wikipedia standards.

Good luck with the rest of your final revisions! 1013-andy 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Dan

Hey Kate, I think you have a good article that discusses an important issue. The main problem is that the article doesnt seem encyclopedic at times. The last section where you discussed what a person can do to help is too informal. I would recommend changing this and a few other parts around to make them more professional. I'll try editing a few things to show you what I mean.1013-Dan 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

General Edits

  • I completely reformatted your last section on "what you can do." I tried to make it so that the section seemed more encyclopedic. I made the paragraph into a list of options. Another thing that might be good is to add is another subsection on the public/gov solutions to the problem. It would list/describe all the laws and organizations (including the agreement you detailed) that have a part in the Great Lakes AOC. 1013-Dan 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Added internal link to acid rain 1013-Dan 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonpoint Source Pollution - deleted last sentance 1013-Dan 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Point Source Pollution - edited wording of paragraph1013-Dan 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Invasive Species - added internal links, edited paragraph wording 1013-Dan 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed the main paragraph to flow better1013-Dan 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Precious

Hey kate,

I thought you had a good paper with a lot of details. There was clear information that seemed to flow well with your topic. I felt that i kept up with your topic and became more knowledgable by reading your article. You had a few sentences that needed rewording, and a few grammar mistakes but other than that you have a well coming article.

Hey Kate, I just went over your article again and i think if you add a little more informtion to your last section on atmospheric pressure it could strengthen your article. Tonight i will look and see if i can find you some more information on that section. I didn't see any grammar mistakes but i will stop by tomorrow to check again.1013-precious 04:27, 3 May 2007 (U

Hey Kate,

I was looking on the internet and found a website that may help you and give you more ideas. http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/pollution/aoc.html. Let me know if it help.19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Theres also another site that has a special report gor the great lakes.http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/aoc_rep/english/report/index.html.1013-precious 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Other Wikipedians

I've tagged the article with {{inappropriate tone}}. Asking questions in the headings ("Why Are They Areas of Concern?") makes the article seem like an FAQ rather than an encyclopedia article. If you need some help with style editing, just let me know. ShadowHalo 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the header was changed to "Threats" and some other tone problems addressed. What do you think? Does this tag still apply? 1013-josh 10:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks better now, so I went ahead and removed the tag. ShadowHalo 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)