Talk:Appalachian Land Ownership Survey

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scott1145, Meganpoole1212, Mellonhe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments From Logan King
Grammatical Errors: There should be an "and" right before the word "petroleum" in the Absentee Ownership section. It should be Appalachian Mountains instead of Appalachia mountains. In the third sentence of the Natural Resource Mining section, it is unclear who is relying on Wyoming and Montana for coal production. In the fourth sentence, I think you meant "country's" not "counties". Should be "led" instead of "lead" right before the clean air act, and make sure to add and apostrophe before the "s" in "regions" on sentence 5. I think you should add "to have" in the first sentence of the Cultural Effects section right after the word "corporations".

General: It might be beneficial to talk about what absentee ownership is instead of how much land they cover. There is a random section title at the bootm called "See Also", that may need to be removed before going out to the main space.

Bias: It appeared a little biased against absentee owners in that section where it only talked about how much land the covered. The Natural Resources section is slightly biased against burning bituminous coal, but other than that appears good. The last sentence is very biased against the tax system in the "Tax System Failure" section. It appears to attack the system instead of being neutral. The Economic Growth section was well done and did not appear to have any bias or grammatical errors. The tone near the end of the Cultural Effects section was a little condescending towards the absentee owners and big corporations.

Sources: Everything appeared to be cited correctly and nothing was plagiarized from what I could tell.

It was a well done article and it was informative. The layout was also good and was easy to follow and understand. Just work on the minor grammatical errors and some of the bias that is presented in various places. Kinglj1 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits from Wren McDaniel
I think that the page looks great and everything is set up very well! There are a few grammar mistakes. I would suggest reading the page out loud to make sure that everything sounds cohesive. The section about economic growth I believe has some bias and maybe the first four sentences I would reword, because they don't sound neutral for the section. I would suggest more is added to the section about taxation, because I thought that it was an important section for the topic of the page. Also the last sentence of the taxation section should be reworded it seemed biased and don't start the section off by stating because. The extra "see also" page should be deleted unless y'all plan on adding other information or resources to the page. All of the citations look good. I think other than changing some sentences and grammar, y'all did a really good job!Wrenmcdaniel (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Forrest Lee
Overall, this page is set up well and is easy for people to follow and understand. There are some grammar mistakes in this article though, but they can be easily fixed if you simply re-read it and make it sound better. The first sentence in "Absentee Ownership" needs an "and", Appalachian Mountains not Appalachia mountains, don't start a paragraph with "because" (Taxation System Failure), and I would also re-word the first sentence in the Cultural Effects section.

I think one thing that needs work in your article is the "Taxation System Failure" paragraph. I think a better opening sentence is needed and it also sounds like four sentences that state facts that really have no connection, the sentences in that paragraph don't flow to allow the reader to comprehend it. Unless you plan on adding to it, take out the "see also" section before moving your project to the main-space.

Bias: The last sentence in the Taxation System Failure should be reworded. Also bias is present in the Cultural effects section, the last few sentences show bias toward the corporations that are benefiting from use of the land. Your sources look good and there is no paraphrasing from what I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jforrestlee (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Max Trachtenberg
Grammatically I did not see anything major that needed any edits on my end. It all seemed to be appropriate language for an academic article. I would say for the most part the tone is encyclopedic however I did notice that in the economic growth and cultural effects sections the language becomes a bit loose. Loose meaning that there seems to be a lot more opinionated words in the economic growth section like writing that they got to enjoy their own beautiful backyard scenery disappear is a good example where it should be a little less biased. I would also get rid of the breathing down the back of their necks part as well or just re word it. Everything looks to be cited properly from what I can tell not any biased sources. I would maybe add some more linked words in your sections like the group did in the natural resource mining part. Maybe absentee ownership and cultural effects can using some buffing up in the later stages but nothing major. Overall this is a good outline page and only has minor steps following this to turn the page into a full wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtrachten (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Rymisenar
There seems to be a lot of sections, could they be consolidated into less? All are in the 1.0 range. Great job staying away from biased comments. Sites properly done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymisenar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)