Talk:Pittsburgh water crisis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 18nicki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VUWirk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

untitled
Danica's peer review questions:

1) Very clear and concise, cohesive, well organized

2) Nothing major, so perhaps add hyperlinks and pictures

3) Adding hyperlinks to make it more like a Wiki-style article

"This spike in lead concentration has roots in decades of erosion in lead pipes, and was hastened by a switch to the water company Veolia in 2012" Try being a little more straightforward, less flowery language. "it has at times exceeded the federal lead threshold of 15 ppm by almost 1.5 times[1]." Clarify this a little, avoid at times, maybe quantify or just say it has exceeded the federal threshold. The by almost 1.5 is a little confusing too. introduced -> introduce Also introduce what orthophosphate is, why are they introducing it? "which have eroded within the past few decades." "unauthorized switch led to an increase in erosion levels which caused the water's lead levels to spike beyond the federal limit." Try keeping it as to the point as possible, some details I feel like you already mentioned before (the 15ppm federal limit) so I am not sure you need to mention it again. "other symptoms such as: irritability, weight loss,.." You didn't mention the particular risk to pregnant women, also you once again explained the federal threshold. "Since the PWSA's proposed solutions have not been fully implemented," "an unexpected obstacle interfered with the progress of the lead pipe removal." too vague "thus breaking up a lining within the pipes..." remove thus. "A couple of months after this discontinuation, legislation was passed that allowed the PWSA to use Pittsburgh's public safety powers to remove both public and private lines, which is the best long term solution. However, despite the legislation's support, this will be a lengthy and expensive endeavor that is unlikely to be completed within the next ten years and is estimated to cost nearly $400 million" I tried making it more concise and reliant on facts, a little less passive.° Maybe try claims instead of hopes in the last sentence.

Overall this is a great article and you certainly go at it from a variety of angles which makes it very holistic and informative, you also have a lot of sources. The biggest fix that the article could benefit from is just trying to be as concise as possible, and getting to the points and causations straight on. I also don't think the contents section is needed since Wikipedia automatically generates one for you.

Gabyal1133 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)