"Notes" at the bottom of your page should be titled "References." The coding is

References[edit]

After reviewing the sandbox of MDEQ, our group decided to give them a grade of 8 out of 10. Below is our suggestions and comments in more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucyxulu (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The separation between the Budget Allocation and Environmental Incentives could be clearer. Are Environmental Incentives part of their budget allocation? If not, make Environmental Incentives its own heading.

The heading "Rest of the Categories" does not sound right. Maybe "Other Categories"?

I like the Initiatives section at the bottom. It shows that the page is more than a simplification of the MDEQ website.

We mentioned shortening the budget numbers section, so thanks for doing that!Lmett (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! Only, it could be organized a little more clearly, the list at the beginning is a little overwhelming so perhaps more sub categories could be added or it could be organized into more broader categories. Also, you have a lot of links to other wikipages listed one after the other, perhaps elaborate more and have them linked within the description. And don't forget a larger title at the top, you may be including this or maybe it just didn't show up. But you have a lot of great information! Good job! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zofiab (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it is a good page! The bullet points are clear and the pictures are informative. You might consider adding more details under the picture captions. Lucyxulu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There seems to be a lot of overlap with the different sections. For example the Clean Michigan Initiative is covered twice with what seems to be very similar information. The first section seems to be just connections to PDFs and websites. I feel like you could combine the different sections into one cumulative information. With that being said, the information is extremely comprehensive and there are connections and citations for everything. I really don't think that any more information needs to be added, it just needs to be organized a little to connect the different sections. I also am not seeing the figures. Granted this could be something that is wrong with my computer, but I don't know so I would just make sure that it works on all possible computer. In summary I really do think that you have all of the right information, just bring it together and I really think that you guys will have done a great job reviewing the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Mattpund (talk)

I agree with Matt. It appears you have included all the relevant information but the page does seem to lack some organization. I do think have links to PDFs and publications from the michigan.gov/deq is something good to include on the page, but you may want to group them under fewer headers/sections. I also am unable to view your figures. I'm not sure why that is. One last thing I suggest is adding a small intro section. I'm assuming the current page that you are going to merge with has one, in that case do you believe it is sufficient? Crothe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]