User:ColorRunner/sandbox

"Article Evaluation"

Dakota Access Pipeline protests article: The article seemed quite relevant to the topic, with a lot of factual information and valid citations. The links I checked worked and the sources support the claims. However, this article seemed slanted towards supporting the protesters and the fight to stop the pipeline. Perhaps the information against construction of the pipeline is merely factual, but there was not enough information from the other side. As I was reading, the protesters were painted in a positve light and the Corps of Engineers in a negative light. There is even a side bar titled "Part of a series on Indigenous Rights" and it lists rights, organiztions, and political groups in support of indigenous rights. I am against the construction of the pipeline, and I truly enjoyed reading this Wikipedia article. But the views against it were overrepresented in comparison to the views that supported it. The information is very current and up to date with entries dated as current as February 2017 and as old as early 2016. Overall, the article is very thorough and extremely interesting. Sources and references are well linked, reliable, and actively working. However, the view against the Dakota Access Pipeline is overrepresented only because there is limited information supporting construction of the pipeline.

According to Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline would carry up to 570,000 barrels of oil a day while creating 12,000 jobs in the area, $129 million in annual taxes, and reduce the overall dependence the U.S. has on foreign oil. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had conducted a limited review of the route and found no significant impact, but in March and April 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Assessment and issue an Environmental Impact Statement. copied from Dakota Access Pipeline protests