Talk:Hobet Coal Mine

Untitled
Hello, classmates, You can edit the new Hobet Mine page here (in my sandbox). I hope we're all on the same page about working on the mine rather than the county. Please don't hesitate (obviously) to change any of what I wrote, if you have improvements. I put in some tentative subtopics, but I'm not married to them. It was more for the sake of having something to turn in. Am I understanding correctly that we are each supposed to be in charge of one specific subtopic for the semester? Is the lead section a group thing, then, or is that one of the subtopics? I would guess it's a group thing. I made a good start on the lead paragraph. Please go ahead and fill it out!E.M. Delay (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I added some demographics to the economic subsection, because they help explain why this is an instance of environmental injustice, as we have discussed.E.M. Delay (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! This is Steffan Diedering So far the page is well written yet it needs some more word to it in order to be ready for the world. The lead was not what was expected, it was leaving certain sections out and did not really summarize everything well, and was full of sort of fragmented sentences. Within the sections themselves they seemed to lack information, so i would try to add a higher level of detail to each section, and then do your vagueness in the lead and intro paragraph. Overall the page and structure was well written, but basically adding more work and information would help strengthen your case, and maybe it just takes putting your page out there and letting people edit it that will make it much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shteffy409 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Here are my notes on this wiki article:

The structure of the page fit well, and the lead did not favor a certain section over others, but I would go through and edit some of the sentencing. It was a little broken up, versus flowing. Each section was equally developed though I did think you could switch some things around and add more information. For example, in the Union section under History, I would add the reason the strikes occurred, if you can find that information. Under the EJ Activism section under History, I would find another incident that occurred, use more information for the one you have, or add the litigation information from the Future Developments section and erase it from that section. In the Ownership and Bankruptcy section under Economics, I would keep the information here, but take it out of the history section, since this is repetitive information. In the Human Health Impacts section under Environmental Health Impacts, I would add the results of a study on the health impacts of the production of coal using mountaintop removal. I don't know what the numbers in the parentheses represent; if they don't mean anything, you should remove them. Lastly, I think if you can find a picture and get the rights to it, you should add it. (thanks for pointing out the grammatical stuff, that's been cleared up and corrected)

Jlafrentz1 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is my peer-review:

Lead Section •	Easy to understand and follow •	Good overview of the subtopics Suggestions: Citations needed; do not understand how “increasing productivity encouraged workers to successfully strike for their health... “ How did increasing in productivity encourage workers to strike for their health?

Structure •	Sections are easy to understand •	Clear reason for where the sections are Suggestions: I would recommend adding demographics of race into the article (I think this is an important aspect that should not be left out)--if applicable it can enhance why this is an environmental justice issue. Adding images would be beneficial as well to demonstrate the severity of the issue.

Balance Coverage •	No one aspect of the article dominates too much Suggestions: If there is enough information of the different owners who came to buy the mine, it would be great to learn more about each owners experience with the mine. In the “Future Development” section there is only a mention of the opposing side to mining (lawsuit against Patriot Coal Corporation)--maybe add those that are/were in favor of this

Neutral Content •	No persuasion Suggestions: be careful of the words used “considerably lower national…” (Income Demographics) “significantly higher national…” (Income Demographics) “higher still…” (income demographics) “Many environmental problems…” (Environmental and Health Impacts) Instead: There are studies showing environmental problems are caused by... (here you can link the word “studies” to studies that have shown this to be the case)

Reliable Sources Many of the sources used are from website articles. The ones that are mainly scholarly articles are about the health impacts of the mining. Try to see if there is any scholarly work on this topic.

Other •	Make sure to cite whenever facts are stated •	If possible paraphrase the quotes •	Remove the parenthesized numbers: (8), (10), etc. •	A lot of repeat on: ownership of the mine and mine no longer producing

Hilda a (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Overall, the sections that the article was divided into made sense, and the subtopics within the sections were also very relevant. One of the first things I noticed that could be added to improve the article is to add links of other wikipedia articles on some of the companies, people, places, and mining techniques that are mentioned. For example, I do not know what draglining, so it would have been helpful if draglining was linked so that I could directly go to the page on draglining so that I could better understand the context of the article. The same could be done for other terms that are not explained or defined in this article. (w/r/t draglining: noted, and thanks.)

Another thing I noticed about this article is that some subtopics could use a little more detail. Both the General History and Ownership and Bankruptcy mention the different companies that acquired the mine, but fail to give any details on what, if anything, changed for the Hobet Coal Mine under different ownership. The bankruptcy of the mine was mentioned on numerous occasions as well but the article did not explain why the mine became bankrupt. (more details have been added, thanks!)

Once some of the information holes are fixed, I feel like the article will be a lot more comprehensive and informative, especially since the structure and sections are already solid.

Yoonjeansjeans (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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): E.M. Delay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GSI
•	Overall, great job so far! The article is well structured and thorough.

•	You’ve done a good job adding links to other articles, and I see you’ve added links to your page into other articles, but the more the better! (we had these there in greater abundance, but they were subsequently deleted) •	Did any changes result from the EJ activism? (w/r/t Hobet, it does not seem so, the only thing that came out of an activist work was the acquirement of the site by VCLF which is detailed in the article) •	I would recommend going through the article again and making sure it all reads well. I saw some minor grammatical mistakes and some sentences were overly wordy, such as “Current West Virginia Governor Jim Justice has stated that he supports going through with former West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin's plan to develop the site.” Since in the sentences before you stated that the plan was proposed by former governor Early Ray Tomblin, you can just say that Jim Justice supports going through with the plan to develop the site. (we've changed this, thanks for the suggestion) •	The tone is neutral and you’ve done a great job so I don’t have too many more comments – keep up the great work! California1990 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Mahollis (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I really enjoyed reading this article! I liked that it came from a neutral point of view and was not biased in any way. Everything that was written in this article was completely fair. I think that is an important aspect.Emmadeitz (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)