User talk:JonieXie/sandbox

Review

I see some problems here. There is a lot of unsourced speculation, and a good deal of synthesis and original research. To tackle just some of your additions:

• Appalachian region suffered from poverty for so many years, while there wasn’t concerned by the government./ Poverty in Appalachian has not been paid attention until 1960s. Where is the statement in the cited source that says there was no government concern, or that there was no action taken prior to the '60s? The source tells us that there was legislation created in the 1960s, but does not say anything about the government's actions or attitude before that.
• Transportation may be the most reason which restricts the development of the economy. Where's the source that suggests this?
• the entire Appalachian region still suffers from population decline and the loss of younger residents to the cities. Again, where is the source?
• The central lands of Appalachia have been dominated by landowners who only show interest in the profits of mountaintop coal mining, undermining the importance of those who live in the areas and the effect their business has on their lives. This is non-neutral; it should be made very clear that you are repeating Burris's opinion rather than stating this as fact.
• It is the cyclical way of life where those who profit from the detrimental effects are the ones who do not have to endure those effects. This is pure speculation.
• Because of isolation, many Appalachians are afraid of modernization. Harsh living conditions and serious poverty keep them far away from modernization. Where does it say this in the source?
• people in this area are not share the equally in fruits of nation’s development Try to avoid metaphor, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Instead, consider, "people in this area do not have an equal share of the nation's economic wealth," or something similar.
• In the remote mountain districts, violent feuds usually happen. Appalachians use assassination and guns as weapons, against each other for several years. The major participants are always elite class and people who are fighting for their political rights. This is unsourced, inflammatory speculation.

I could go on, but that should suffice to show that there are serious problems with the way that you are approaching this article. Wikipedia is not the venue in which to right great wrongs; your duty here is to concisely report what the various sources, on both sides of the argument, have said. You need to restrict yourself to explaining what your sources say, not offering analysis, and you certainly need to review Wikipedia's neutrality policy and policy on original research. I accept that English is not your first language and so I can see how this is a difficult task for you, but the changes that you've made in your sandbox would, I'm afraid, be very quickly reverted if they appeared in the live version of the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)