Talk:Hazard mitigation in the Outer Banks
|WikiProject United States / North Carolina||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This article was part of a Wikipedia School and University Projects educational assignment called Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation in the Outer Banks. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Emplanning".|
Final Wikipedia Project Evaluation (April 23, 2012)
|This article needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to standard before it can be moved to 'main space'. The following are the main weaknesses:
1. Citations are pre-dominantly from internet sources. Need more journal articles and book sources.
2. Citations/references missing in multiple paragraphs & sections.3. The format and organization of the article needs to be re-worked and tightened. The is overlapping information.
PEER REVIEW CraverJ08 The nines group did a great job with organizing their Wikipedia project. The organization chain follows a good structure that makes sense by starting with describing the Outer Banks and its geography and importance to North Carolina. It then goes into detail about hazards caused by hurricanes and the mitigation, infrastructure, and demographics. Overall, the organization was very logical. After reading the article i did notice some grammatical errors so the article needs to be read over. The references seem to be very well researched. The nines group did a good job with having a variety of sources from articles, websites, and the government census. However, they did use some Wikipedia websites which are not reliable sources. So I would remove that from the reference page and try to find to same information from a reliable source. Overall, I believe the nines group strongest point was their organization but they still needed some more information in the article as a whole. I like how the group added pictures as well. On the good article status I would give this group a B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraverJ08 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PEER REVIEW Flowern10 After reading the article, Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation in the Outer Banks, the organization was well put together from the beginning of the introduction to the end of the article. The quality of the introduction was very good and the way that they ended the introduction was important. The end of the introduction that talked about hazard mitigation is what made the introduction because the majority of the article deals with hazard mitigation. Throughout reading the article I did not notice and grammatical errors. As far as the references are concerned I believe that most of them are reliable except for a few. The Wikipedia websites are not reliable sources because, any non accredited person can create their own Wikipedia website and therefore, in an academic situation, this can not be used as a creditable source. I believe that all the necessary information was in the article in order to get the point across to readers. All of the information that was in the article dealt with the topic of choice and there was no irrelevant information. On the "Good Article" status I would give their article a "B" for a couple of reasons. The article does not seem to be missing any information. But if a reader were to need in-depth research on the topic, and read this article then they could be left still needing more information. --Flowern10 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PEER REVIEW Scarbel Overall, the article is very informative. However, given that the title of your article is "Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation in the Outer Banks", I would suggest spending a little less time on the overall and general information about the Outer Banks and hurricanes and more time on the information prevalent to the mitigation plans. While I agree that background information on both the geographical location and the hazard are necessary, perhaps you could incorporate it by way of internally linking Outer Banks and Hurricane. Also, I would have liked to have seen an overall introduction prior to your section on "Outer Banks". That said, I did think the article was very well written, both grammatically and in terms of the content. Another suggestion I offer is the use of examples. In terms of hazard mitigation on the outer banks, I noticed you spoke of Highway 12, which is the only main roadway that links the outer banks. Since parts of this highway were severely damaged during Hurricane Irene in 2011, perhaps you could discuss the repercussions of having this roadway inaccessible to residents/visitors and the implications that it held. Since Hurricane Irene was one of the more damaging hurricanes to strike the Outer Banks recently, I would have liked to have seen what steps were taken to prepare for it and what could have been done in hindsight. As stated before, I do believe this article is well written and does present very valid and important points. The goals of the Dare County mitigation plan were an excellent inclusion and I'd be interested to see if specific examples could be linked back to these goals. In terms of citations, I think more scholarly and peer-reviewed sources could have been found. I fear that web-based materials are somewhat less reliable than peer-reviewed articles from reputable journals. --Scarbelc05 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
PEER REVIEW CINDYJB The article « Hazard mitigations and adaptation in the Outer-Banks » reaches, in my opinion, the category B following the « good article criteria ». The organization using only main headings is simple but decent. However, the two last categories “infrastructures” and “demographics” need to be better linked. I would also develop the “infrastructures” part. Maybe split the “demographics” one in two “population” that would deals with what are the major threats and mitigation about the private properties and one called “statistics” where you can put relevant number. The “infrastructures” and “population” would be subtitles under a main part. The introduction is well built, the references look reliable and sustain all the text. The style is neutral, clear and concise but you should avoid using first person pronouns. The article is stable in the time and the illustration are from Wikipedia commons so there is no problem of copyright. About the content, my main comment would be that you focus only on hurricanes threat (and in the hazards produced by hurricanes you can add the formation of new inlet) when coastal erosion is also an important natural hazards. They talk about it in Battle for North Carolina Coast. It’s an important issue that leads to many mitigation included beach nourishment and hardening of coastlines for mitigation. Also, it’s more and more controversial has it has side effects and it become more expensive. You can have a nice example and picture with Cape Hatteras lighthouse relocation. The last thing is that “Hurricanes are an extreme concern for the stability and existence of the Outer Banks. The Outer Banks are highly vulnerable when threatened by a hurricane.” this is another controversial point where can enter into action the “adaptation” mentioned in the title. The outer banks are at the origin unstable and moving. The hurricanes make drastically changes to the geomorphology but the outer banks rely on the overwash by the storm surge to be created and consolidated with the sand. So they need hurricanes to exist. Hurricanes damage mostly the urbanization, and trying to avoid the overwash makes the sand barrier weaker. To conclude you may change the title of your article because it’s focus on hurricanes, or add more information. Cindyjb (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
PEER REVIEW BHACK08 The article overall was very informative and fluent. The organization of the Wikipedia article is very good, keeping fluent transitions between sections, also giving clear headings and subheadings. The quality of the introduction is well developed, giving clear information on the background and the main topics within article. The grammatical and spelling errors were minimal, if none, showing no clear mistakes throughout the paragraphs. The references are reliable, with all websites seeming to be organizations or governmental. The article has adequate content, although there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information pertaining to the actual title of the article, which was mitigation and adaption, instead there was mostly information describing the area, rather that the problems dealing with mitigation. The article has no irrelevant material, all seeming to be related to Outer Banks. The article meets the 'Good Article' Status, being very useful to readers, and easy to read and understand from non-expert readers.
Midterm Wikipedia Assignment Comments
Article structure needs more work. The focus seems too broad with the current organization and article sections.
Good work in putting together external web based citations. However, I am troubled that the citations are exclusively web-based. The article needs to include library references as well (citations from journal articles and books). Such citations would be part of the section discussion on Natural Hazards (hurricanes, coastal erosion, sea level rise), Hazard Mitigation & Planning, Geographic Description, as well as other relevant sections (e.g., history of disasters in Pitt county, etc.). Your article will lose points without good library references to back up your writing.
The assignment did also include identifying 5 internal Wikipedia links that could be used in your article. I see a few links inserted into the paragraphs, however, this part needs some more thought and Wikipedia research.
It seems to me that your group needs better collaboration from all members, I am troubled by the fact that only a couple of the group members are doing most of the Wikipedia writing (documented in the page history section). REMEMBER, the next part of your assignment will be graded individually, so make sure that everyone logs in and does writing on Wikipedia. I am looking forward to the first draft as you guys flesh it out.
(Emplanning (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
Hey, Just wanted to let you all know that i have found 2 more non-web sources that we can use in our wiki project.
When tomorrow would you all like to meet to go over everything. I have to work at 5:30pm and I need to take a test by 3. Could we possibly meet at like 3:30? If this time is not good for any of you let me know as soon as you can so that we can decide on a time. Thanks guys!
- Katherine Duff
Hey guys. I am having a bit of trouble finding the information that I am looking for in regards to this project if you guys could get up with me as soon as you look at this that would be great. Thanks so much guys!
- Katherine Duff
Hey guys, I just finished my part of the outline. I am about to email each of you a copy of what I have done so that you will get a chance to look at it before we meet tomorrow. Please let me know if everything looks good or if I need to change anything. Thanks guys!!
- Katherine Duff
Hey, That sounds great, are we still meeting tonight or no? Just let me know thanks!!
Hey guys, I am sitting here trying to think about the project and details of it and I feel like we need to set up a time to meet with Mrs. Mukherji. We need to sit down and figure out the exact things she wants from our project so that we are not so broad with our topic.
Hey guys, Since we met with the professor today we need the following sections in our paper:
- Into - Describing the outer banks -demographics -infrastructure -hazards - Hazard mitigation plan - Reference section
We need to specifically talk about Dare County and we also need to make sure we have library references and emergency management sources. We also need to talk about the Outer Banks perspective on hazard mitigation and address which cities are not included in the Dare County Mitigation Plan and see if they have their own plan and talk about that plan in brief.
That stuff she gave me when we went to her office Wednesday will not open on my computer so I have come up with other things to use.
|It is suspected that this article may be a copyright violation, but without a source this cannot be definitively determined. If this article can be shown to be a copyright infringement, please list the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are certain that the article is not a copyright violation, you should give evidence below. Please do not remove this tag without discussion. (July 2012)|
- Note This article was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I cannot find any evidence of copying, although the tone of this article (written like something for a magazine or a personal essay) is inappropriate and may have contributed to the suspicion that parts of it were copied from somewhere. I have removed the copypaste tags from the article itself. If sources are subsequently found from which this article (in whole or in part) was clearly copied, please relist at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, giving the exact source(s). Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)