Talk:Fossil fuel regulations in the United States

Untitled
1. Your opening sentence, "fossil fuel regulation has been a large focus of energy policy" may not necessarily be a neutral sentence. I totally agree that it is a large focus, but because "large" is such a subjective term, another person may not feel the same way. It may be better to just say "fossil fuel regulation is a focus of energy policy..." 2. It may be better to make your "fossil fuel regulations in the US" section more broad since it is supposed to give a general idea about the topic...I feel like it focuses a little too much on modern day policy 3. Because it seems like a lot of your information seems to be focused on current day happenings, it may be better to name your article something like "modern day fossil fuel regulations in the US". This way, you won't have to give an expansive background history of regulations and focus on the main events that are associated with Trump and his administration. 4. Overall, I find your topic to be really interesting and I like the way you structured your article. Can't wait to see how it develops!Hcw5 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the feedback we will change the wording of the first sentence, and see how to make the title more representative of the article.

Alexis1621 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
This is a great outline! Nice job linking. Begin to fill it in with content so you can go live!

- Make sure you have citations for all of your content.

- I like your idea of "writing for the enemy" by writing about the merits of the fossil fuel industry in terms of the labor economy. Maybe add statistics about how fossil fuel regulations have effected labor.

- Not sure if you wanted to write about vehicle emissions, but CAFE standards might make a good addition? They are very controversial.

Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAA8423 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What to do
Most new articles are unambitious, crap or both. This one is a refreshing contrast. Good! However, it has serious problems:

In the very first paragraph there are four "citation needed" flags. Provide a reliable source for each -- and likewise throughout the article.

Near the top there are three headers in a row -- -- that have no content. Provide content, or cut the headers. (And there's at least one other contentless header below: "Concerns and related regulations".)
 * Resistance against phase out regulations, and supporters of continued use of fossil fuels
 * Company and worker response
 * Controversies (within the Trump administration)

Within the single section "Oil spills", there are three separate prompts for "Further information". There should be one at most. (Even a single such prompt is unusual.)

A sample reference:


 * "Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas." Union of Concerned Scientists. Web.

Uh, no. Author(s), title of page, date, title of website, URL, date accessed.

(For more that are similar, search within the page for "vague".)

Toward the end:


 * Fracking is considered to be the energy’s department attempt to distract governments from investing in renewable energy. This is because there is a lot of profit to be made in exporting the resulting oil and gas. There are also a lot of jobs in this sector, which boosts the economy.

Who considers it so, and where? "The Energy Department's attempt", perhaps? Plural "governments", really? Even if the latter is a typo for a single "government", does a department attempt to distract a government? (Actually the end of this article sounds woolly, as if the author got very tired.) -- Hoary (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, "Concerns and related regulations" isn't a contentless header. My mistake; sorry! -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And another thing. Above, I demanded "Author(s), title of page, date, title of website, URL, date accessed." Of course you can't specify either the author(s) or the date if the source doesn't provide this information, and skipping the date when the page was "accessed" ("retrieved") is no biggie. But you do need the URL (or "URI" if you're pedantic). Therefore something like:


 * "Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas." Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 6, 2017.


 * for the example given above. (The web page doesn't seem to say either when it was written or who wrote it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
This article has developed very nicely. My suggestions mirror the ones above, and if you address these I think you should be able to move it back to the mainspace. There is plenty of great content here. Nice work.GAA8423 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)