User talk:Danilar/sandbox

Danielle that looks great! :)I've copied it to my sandbox, because I don't know how else to edit it without destroying your copy, so I can make a couple minor changes (like period placement, adding an 's' to indigenous peoples, and linking to one or two things...). Check out my changes and see what you think. I wonder, too, if eventually you may want to cut words out of this, so you can get more in your other section... but for now I think this is great :). I've emailed everybody else to tell them the same.--Eye101 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I edited a couple of links on your page, and fixed the references thing. Check out what I added at the end of your text to see how to make working references sections :)--Eye101 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slide Section Edits

Hey Danielle. Your second section looks awesome! I've made a couple (non-substantial edits). They are: Removed redundant links (some of them were already linked in your other section or in the intro section), removed ‘manmade’ because it’s gendered and also redundant in this sentence (implementing modifications implies it is human done), added ‘while’ (‘while carving...’), changed ‘entered’ to ‘fell into’ (entered sounds funny to me... maybe it sounds like it gives the rock slide agency...?), fixed ‘fry’ link so it didn't say 'biology' in it, removed extra stuff in citations (the whole page should be thought of as one piece, so I'm pretty sure when citing a paper that was already cited in an earlier section, only the abbreviated reference is needed). And the last thing is that sentence I left in bold. Without having read your source, I have NO clue what you are talking about. Is there a way to add a little bit to make it clearer? As Always, these are just my thoughts and if you disagree, let's work it out! :) --Eye101 (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Isaac! I revised the section that you had bolded. I was trying to say that the construction of the CPR reduced the distances (and transportation time) between places, and ultimately because of this it changed the land (due to construction) and people of the Fraser Canyon... if that makes sense. Let me know what you think of the revision. Danilar (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But what on earth is the "friction of distance"?! haha --Eye101 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Danielle! Building on Isaac’s comments here are my suggestions (I made them in the sentence order again, let me know if you need any clarification): 1) I would replace “for” before the gold rush miners with “used by”? 2-6) all good 7) Instead of saying “introduced change” – changed the land and its people. 8) Good 9) I have lost track of this sentence due to the “and in significant volumes” maybe you should omit that sentence as it does not add much or integrate it into the sentence in this way: “new rail-bed” a significant amount of “rock and debris…”) 10) I would not use “fell” in this case as it is a slide… maybe it would be better to revise the sentence: “a large rockslide occurred and rocks slid?) 11) I think that Dr. Loo mentioned that we do not need to talk about hydrology – so we might want to consider whether it is really necessary to include it here? 12) Since we have a section dedicated to salmon, I think it would be better not to include this bit about salmon here as it could lead to some overlaps in between the texts.

Overall amazing job Danielle :) --AnastasiaU. (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions Anastasia! I made several of the changes already. Regarding using the word "fall" when discussing a rockslide, it is usually the correct word to use since rockslides and rockfalls often fall into the same category. It was used in the source that I referenced, I believe and drawing from what I can remember from the three EOSC/Geology classes I took, I believe it is the correct use of the word. Also regarding the hydrology part, I think it is kind of important to understand how the slide affected the river and it's speed/depth, which is therefore important in understanding how and why the salmon were impeded at Hell's Gate. If we just mention that the salmon had issues migrating upstream, we are not explaining why they can't make it upstream (because of changed water depth and speed). I don't think one sentence regarding hydrology will hurt if it means enhancing the clarity of the article. If that makes sense? Let me know if that's still a problem, and we can discuss it :) Danilar (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying the "fall" thing for me! When I read it I just thoguht that it sounds kind of funny...that must be the fact that I did not take too many classes related to the rockslides :). You are right one sentence would not hurt, and it sits there nicely, I just thought I'll point those things out as they came to my mind, while I was reading your thing..Great job with everything though! :) --AnastasiaU. (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]