User talk:Jacobfrancis/sandbox

Isaac's Peer Review

I really like the layout you guys have come up with and the pictures you intend to add are great additions to make your point.

It is very well written; however, I think the writing style is a little complex for all users. I would consider revising some sentences that use words like "prompt", "bolster", "foster" and "niche", which could be substituted for words that people are more familiar with. Keep in mind being more inclusive to all levels of literacy (plain language). At times, it was hard to stay concentrated on the point you were making because of the high level of composition. Certain parts read more like an essay.

I do appreciate you providing all the Wikilinks for references to jargon and other potentially unfamiliar terms.

I read that articles should not refer to "the future of (the topic)" because it implies that you could possibly know about the future. I recommend that you replace "The Future of Placemaking" with either "Placemaking and Social Media", "The Progress of Placemaking" or 'Modern Placemaking". Also "Placemaking" in the heading for "Livable Streetscapes" seems redundant to me because its already the title of the article and everything should relate back to that.

References are more than enough and all the links provided seem to work. Nice work on relating back to "Whyte's standards" when talking about livability. It's the only sense of bias that I noticed in the amendments to your article. This way it notes by whose standards is a street considered "livable". Ijcruz (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)