Talk:Stream Protection Rule/Archive 1

Student discussion
Reann's Peer Review suggestions:

first paragraph:

“coal mining industries” it’s a minor suggestion but the article itself is just “coal mining” yet you have the link set for the entire phrase “coal mining industries” which is a little deceiving because it gives authority to the entire phrase as if there were an article for that specific phrase.

“The Stream Protection Rule was a rule” this sentence seems a bit obvious and repetitive. Maybe you could substitute it for something like regulation or initiative? I understand that it is literally a rule but i’m sure there is another way to rephrase that sentence.

History:

is the word ‘originally’ needed? It was also used in the first paragraph when referring to the same sentence: “originally became effective on”. I feel like the use of the word originally gives your article a tone that wikipedia doesn’t usually use. Like there is supposed to be a counter to it like “the steam protection rule originally became effective on January 19, 2017 BUT…” does this statement change at some point in the rest of the article that makes it not ‘original” anymore? I hope that makes sense. You could just simply say “the steam protection rule became effective on January 19, 2017…”

The language used in, “Despite the fact that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act already being in place…” isn't wikipedia language and in way senses a bias. Instead you could just simply say: the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was in place when the 2015 proposal of new stream regulation requirements revised and reorganized it due to the Office of Surface Mining's need for regulatory improvements.

Again, the language of “The Stream Protection Rule was not only supposed to cover waterways near surface coal mining operations in order to avoid pollution of rivers and streams; it also called for the restoration of streams that had been damaged by dangerous, heavy metals like mercury and arsenic." could easily be taken as having a bias when its a simple fix. Using the phrase like “was not only supposed to cover” when you could just say: “the steam protection rule protected waterways near surface coal mining operations in order to avoid pollution of rivers and streams. It also called for the restoration of streams that had been damaged by dangerous, heavy metals like mercury and arsenic”. As you can see, I also changed the punctuation of the sentence because I feel like the ; was not necessary. Keep it simple. Wikipedia is pretty simple.

This article already looks really good! Well organized and structured and has the right formatting. Under the history section you may want to add a little more information, I know the article is still a draft, but maybe add some more background to it. The first sentence in the biological opinion segment is pretty long and could probably be split into two sentences. In the section discussing the two opinions on the environmental impacts of the repeal, it seems to be a bit biased toward the second opinion. Are there any more articles or research you can find that could support the first opinion? This sentence in the Trump administration section, "Worst of all, people living in surrounding communities may struggle to insert a political voice, despite their increasing endangered landscapes" also sounds a little biased. Maybe take off the "worst of all". Lastly, make sure to have some sources to back up the last few sentences in the EJ implications section. Overall, this draft looks like a great start! Just make sure to keep it as neutral as possible, even though it's pretty difficult to do so. Hroodenrijs (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI
Great work! I see you've already gone live too. Really great content and organization. I would proof-read the article a bit as there are some grammatical mistakes. Make sure it reads easily. I would expand the lead section a bit; include what the stream protection rule is in the lead. See the NEPA page for an example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act). It also seems like part of the enactment section should be in the history section. However, this is up to you. Nice job! GAA8423 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Garrison
•	Great job so far! The article is well-organized and thorough. Your citations look good and the tone of the article is neutral and balanced.

•	Do another read through for copy editing. There are still some grammatical errors, such as under the Enactment section 30 day should be 30 days and congress should be capitalized.

•	You’ve done an excellent job of linking to other articles and having other articles link to yours.

•	Good use of photos. 209.129.89.13 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter
impressive work documenting the history and what's happening with this rule.

Please now focus on EJ dimensions -- does this rule disproportionately affect low-income communities, communities of color, workers? stakeholders in the field should be a good source of information on this.

--EJustice (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Added some detail on the effects and motivations of the Stream Protection Rule. Leifpotvin (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leifpotvin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (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): Ilonamantachian, Jibrilkyser, Felipe.diaz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (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): YungHam. Peer reviewers: Reannp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)