User talk:AnnakarenR/sandbox

San Francisco Naval Shipyard: Closure of the Naval Shipyard:
It is very nice that you are adding current events regarding the redevelopment of the shipyard. You seem to have done a very thorough research and the way you write your added part seems neutral to me as you are just reporting the events without adding your opinion to it and leaving the reader to make their own conclusion about the facts about the air quality and whether or not this shipyard should me redeveloped or not and whether it is going to have was good health outcome on the population that will inhabit the location. It is good that you did not just state that the health of the population in Hunter's point is at risk but that you actually showed the statistical data on the asthma cases especially in the youth the life span. You might want to show how the lifespan in "Russian Hill" is relevant since the reader (like me) might not know where Russian Hill is as compared to Hunter's Point and how that could explain the health disparities. On that note, just showing the statistics on the health of these population should be enough; saying that "the significant exposure to environmental pollutants that has led to the degradation of health in residents of Bayview" kind of creates a causality/effect relationship between the environmental degradation and the health of the population which would need to still be proven by actual research. Therefore, I would delete the it has "led to" and either show correlation or just not state that the environment is the cause because the statistics you give are enough, and this will make your statement sound more neutral, as opposed to trying to lead the reader to believe that you are taking a stance on the issue. On that same note, on Lisa Davis' research you can just explain that the population is indeed exposed to radioactivity and not make very explicit intentions in your conclusions. I like the fact that you also just quote them and clearly say that this is what the author found and not what you believe happened. Well done!

Superfund:
I saw from your summary that you are planning on adding this part as a new section of the article. Have you thought of da title? How does "the Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Waste remediation Program" sound? Some of the sentences are wordy and very long. you could try to break some of them into two separate sentences. Also you are using some words like "only" and "just" skew the statement a little away from neutrality.

'Holifield's study found that the EPA was making significant strides in enhancing communication with grassroots environmental justice movements, but they had very little effect in the actual decision making process. The effects of this program [WHICH PROGRAM?]were only [I WOULD DELETE THIS WORD] subtle, and the efforts to allow EJ [ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?] communities to contribute information to the EPA rather than just receiving information on ongoing remediation projects lacked substantial effects on the distribution of hazardous waste risk (Holifield, 2014)." I would rewrite this part as follows: -Holifield's study found that the  efforts to allow grassroots environmental justice movements to contribute information to the EPA for the decision making process of the ongoing its remediation projects lacked substantial effects on the distribution of hazardous waste risk (Holifield, 2014)- In this part, you could show How the program works first and give explanation to why this communication method actually does not make a difference.

"...found that indeed before Executive Order, there was a bias against black and urban neighborhoods and preference for educated populations to have better remediating practices." You forgot to write "the" or "This" before "Executive Order." Correct me if I am wrong. Also this sentence makes a lot of assumptions. instead of stating the conclusion the source came at, you could give the facts that they have used to show what remediation practice resources were provided in these different communities without stating that there was a bias. This, shows neutrality.

Lastly, there are many assumptions and claims about the inefficiency of the programs and data reports in cleanups, etc. You could dig up some reports snd the actual results of the programs and not state whether or not they were good results, but just that they were results. What were the falsified data? What happened afterwards? Stating the events seems easier here than claiming that bad policy making happened and that there were adverse effects. Overall, good job on showing the weaknesses of superfund and cleanups projects.Cathycoeur (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Alexis Montoya
I learned so much after reading your work; super interesting and I enjoy the emphasis on social justice and ethics that is presented in your work! A couple thoughts that I had as I read through for your area and sector articles:

Area: San Francisco Naval Shipyard: Closure of the Naval Shipyard:
1. Maybe elaborating a bit more on TetraTech: perhaps a brief history on them or whether they have participated in other projects where there has been suspicious activity. Perhaps giving context to the company might neutrally draw more attention to the lack of integrity of their work.

2. Define the work "anomalous" - Maybe its just me but I didn't know what the word was so I had to look it up in order to understand the context -- something super brief in parenthesis maybe?

3. You list the statistics on asthma, chronic illnesses and breast and cervical cancer, especially when contrasted with neighboring conditions of Russian Hill-- this was incredibly impactful when it comes to contextualizing the negative health effects thought to be caused by the unsafe soil.

4. Alongside with the asthma statistics, and if you can find other relevant adverse health statistics, being explicit that there has not been any confirmation that the soil conditions caused these health conditions (unless there is) but that there is strong evidence supporting this fact. I think you have already made it clear that correlation is no causation but just putting this in here anyway.

5. I saw that the article already mentions the ways in which the pollution came to be " succession of coal- and oil-fired power generation facilities which left a legacy of pollution, both from smokestack effluvium and leftover byproducts that were dumped in the vicinity." -- but perhaps you can find more information and maybe numerical data on the estimation thought to have been dumped and transmitted into the environment of this particular area (like how many tons of millions of toxic chemical particles, etc.) Maybe more quantitative data (in addition to the qualitative data already listed in the article) could further strengthen the discussion of the magnitude of toxic waste affecting the individuals there. Anmontoya (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sector: Superfund:
1. There is a slight typo "influenced" instead of "influence" in the sentence "Although it is important to analyze which sites are being remediated, studying the duration of cleanups may not be fully indicative of the quality of cleanup occurring in the area which can be influence by many other sociopolitical and economic factors."

2. "This variation can also been seen with low-income populations which differ also differ at multiple scales." -- perhaps deleting the first "differ"

3. Wondering what section of the article you are going to put this under? The "Environmental Justice" sections seems the most fitting in my opinion (I'm sure thats what you were already thinking, just asking since it wasn't specified) or will it go at the beginning of the article in the introduction of the superfund? It could work there too I think!

4. Under the social justice umbrella there are lots of historical context and statistics, particularly under the subheading titled "In African Americans communities" and "In Native American communities". The arguments in this section about disenfranchised populations support your argument so perhaps looking for sources to site this information could overall strengthen the social justice section. Maybe even discussing/adding a sub heading for the Hispanic/Latino population could be interesting research under this subheading (since you have also mentioned them in your work as part of the disenfranchised communities affected by these policies.)

5. Perhaps defining "EJ" as environmental justice in the paragraph -- I know what it meant but others may not?

6. When you introduce the Naval Shipyard site into the discussion of social justice in the superfund article is great! (especially since other social injustice issues are brought up as examples in the rest of the article) perhaps you could make it a separate paragraph? Also you introduce it as the "Naval Shipyard site" but do not give too much context as to where or what the actual incident is. Maybe even instead of describing it here you could hyperlink "Naval Shipyard site" to the internal Wikipedia page to give context so that you don't waste space talking about what the incidence was and can detail the Superfund in response to this as you have currently done (great job!) Anmontoya (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)