Talk:Emergency management in American universities

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

This article was part of a Wikipedia School and University Projects educational assignment called Emergency Management in American Universities. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Emplanning".

Final Wikipedia Project Evaluation (April 23, 2012)

My comments are in the following areas:

1. Introduction overall needs more work. The quality of material and citations does not adequately reflect the content of the article. Needs more research, a tighter write-up, connections to other relevant wikipedia articles, and perhaps an appropriate image.

2. The sections on Natural and Man-made Disasters are excellent and well researched, with very little grammatical or spelling errors. Use of citations is highly appropriately done. My comments are mostly on minor editing changes. Consider adding some images to break the monotony of text. Overall, great work!!

3. The concluding section needs a bit more work. The quality of material and citations does not adequately reflect the content of the article. Needs more research, appropriate and reliable references (current references are too few) that are formatted according to Wikipedia guidelines, and a thorough proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors as well as neutral voice.

Emplanning (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PEER REVIEW SECTION

Queen's Group

Peer reviewed by: Margaux Kerr

All together the article was organized as a wiki page would be organized, provided background information first and then natural versus manmade disasters, lead onto the steps for management and then sum up the main points, you want the reader to leave with. This wiki page was put together well, seemed like everyone put in a good effort to work together on the organization. In depth material, full of facts and figures. There are minor grammatical errors, introduction I saw one, "policys" to "policies." The sources are reliable sources and are referenced correctly in the article as well as in the reference section. There are numerous internal citations in all the disaster sections, which is good and will give a reader a link to read and understand where and what colleges did these disasters happen. The content of each article comes from universitities and government based web pages, as well as newspaper articles and recovery plans (pdf. files). These are all known and reliable sources for information. I think overall, you guys nailed this wiki assignment!--Margauxbk (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Byron Atkinson

The article is very well put together and seems to have a lot of information and provides for many examples of the situations discussed. The introduction did a very good job of informing me what was to be discussed. I noticed some occasional grammatical errors throughout, but overall the article did a good job of meeting its goals with reliable sources, and article quality and organization. I feel that once the grammatical stuff is corrected it will be up to par with the good article status. Atkinsonb08 —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Peer Review: Carlton Wells

Well organized in the wiki formatting guidelines. Introduction was good, wouldn't include searching for dead people, maybe rescue efforts. Proofreading is needed, one paragraph is included twice. The content of this article is pertinent to the title and flows very well. The usage of case scenarios helps the reader realize that these disasters happen more often than one may realize. The references seem to be reliable and properly identified in the article. Overall great content, a little proofreading will bring this article up to par. The links in the article are great and provide the reader the opportunity to go in depth if desired. Impressive article! Cswells (talk) —Preceding undated comment added date. —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Emplanning (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Emplanning (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midterm Wikipedia Assignment Comments

Queen's Group:

Article structure is well organized. Excellent work in putting together citations (case studies) for article sections on: SectionII:Natural Disasters & SectionIII: Man-Made Disasters.

Please make sure to have adequate citations from library sources (journal articles and books) in other relevant sections (e.g., Introduction, Conclusions & Section IV: Phases on Emergency Management). Your article will lose points without good references to back up your writing.

The assignment did also include identifying 5 internal Wikipedia links that could be used in your article. That part is missing and should be included as you work on your article. I am looking forward to the first draft as you guys flesh it out.

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.

(Emplanning (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Student Section

Hello Queens Group members! I just want to remind you all that our outline and reference list is due by 5pm tomorrow afternoon (3/1/12). I intend to have my 5-6 links up by noon tomorrow. Also please try to expand on your sections a little more before 5pm tomorrow. We will loose points on the group submission if we do not have all the requirements met on this assignment. Please do your part. --Milesa09 (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Group members! Just giving an update. I have posted my links to some of my sources within my section of the outline. I've just noticed no one else has posted links for their parts. I couldn't find many journal articles that related to specific natural disasters and American Universities, so I tried to search for examples of disasters that have occurred at different colleges across the US. The section that seems like it will have the most scholarly journal articles will be the Emergency Management Cycle section (Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation), this is Sean's section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Nick, I have created links in this section, but since the reference portion of the page is your section, you can reformat them for that portion.--Milesa09 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I added a potential edit to the introduction (below the original), it will need more added to it as we go. I also edited the conclusion, which will need more work as we go as well.Remember, we're graded by our individual contributions, be sure to log in when you work so you get credit! Sam082008 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! Just wanted to remind you that the due date for the article draft is tomorrow. Please try to have your work done before the deadline so other group members can take a look at it, and remember, we are being graded on our individual contributions. Sam082008 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Just checking in to say I have pretty much completed my part of the draft. I feel that we do need to go back and address the issues with citing our sources and references. I don't know if everyone is clear on how they need to do it. We can talk about this later this week. Also we do need to meet up to do the group assignment before next Monday, because I believe that's when our group evaluation of another group's article is due. Please let me know what everyone's availability is for this week. Also we need to work on adding some images to the article to add some visual interest! I'm still trying to figure out how to do it. Well let me know if you have any questions! --Milesa09 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, group members, I'm on board with Alexis in that we need to address the reference issues. Is everyone now doing their own references? I got sidetracked by work yesterday, and am working on putting the finishing touches on my part of the draft. This week, I will be available on Thursday between 3-5 or after 6, if we want to try and have a meeting then. Sam082008 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I can meet on Thursday at 3pm. Would the library work for everyone. Please write back to confirm if you will be there or not. If you don't write back I will just assume you didn't get the message and you won't be there. Thanks. --Milesa09 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today at 3pm will work for me. Sam082008 (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emergency management in American universities. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/bob9.asp=[[Today

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergency management in American universities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]