Mestrd007

City Point

Thank you for your contributions so far. I'm writing here to give you some concrete examples of why your edits, such as this one, were removed. In the first instance, it's just not good writing.

"Due to the rezoning of downtown Brooklyn in 2004 the redevelopment plan of Albee Development L.L.C."

is not a sentence, and being as generous as I can be, I can't even imagine what the sentence it isn't would even be trying to say. First of all the 2004 rezoning is already covered immediately before this. The idea is that the encyclopedia be written in as close to one voice as possible, not have any internal inconsistencies or repetitions. Also, was Albee Development LLC even involved in anything in 2004? I would guess not, because they didn't break ground for almost a decade later. I was interested in checking out where you got that information and you didn't even link to a proper source. Instead of an article on "Commercial Observer", you just put a link to the website's internal search results for "Albee Development LLC", which is probably not what you wanted to do. Within one of those articles, it is explicitly stated that Albee Development didn't purchase the site until 2007 and goes further to say it stalled until 2011. So what does any of that have to do with 2004? Further, if you are saying that Albee Development and Thor Equities worked together, what is their (note the spelling) plan you are referring to? You again didn't link to any actual source, just the home page for TE's website. Almost everything else after that is still problematic:

"were able to achieve there plan to have half a million sq ft for retail, quarter million of class A office spaces, about 1,000 apartment units, 20% are affordable"

1, it's not their plan. Albee Development's yes, but TE is just a capital investment company, not a development company. 2, "sq ft" -- we should be spelling out words here. 3, You're using the past tense but this article is from 2007 and you have no idea which if any of these plans were achieved, or, at least have no source presented that says so. 4, Then, instead of continuing to write a sentence, you just sort of list some figures with no context, poor phrasing, and no strong thought or point. You seemed to just give up after listing a few words with numbers before them and not even put a period at the end of this "sentence".

I hope you understand why these particular edits are not constructive, but you can still contribute to the encyclopedia. Perhaps spend some more time reading other articles, especially those deemed "good" or "featured" and get a feel for some of the tone of voice, language, and citation formats used so you can see what makes edits stick. Everyone here is a volunteer and we all have the goal of making every article be as presentable as possible. Thank you! JesseRafe (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)