User talk:Bashthefash26/sandbox

I think it's really great you are adding this section to this page because the existing page is definitely lacking in information on this EJ issue. You probably already know this, but just be careful to watch neutrality, which I think will be achieved by having your two sections on industry and community organizing; sort of two sides to the issue. This also meets the balanced coverage requirement. Since the existing article already describes the oil industry in the region, I don't know how much you could add with your subsection. I guess just by focusing on the EJ side of it is enough and giving their responses to EJ claims. I also don't know how effective the lawsuit section will be. I suppose just documenting what has already been dealt with in court is good, but it may be more helpful to the people of Port Arthur if you maybe included some information on how they can sue and what information they need to file a complaint/ claim with the EPA. Some of our readings for Class 13 (3/6) will deal with this. Because you don't have a lot written yet, here are some sources that might be helpful: National Emission Standards EPA here and What emissions allowed for Oil and Natural Gas companies here A map that shows oil and gas pollution, I don't know it it is the most legitimate source though, but you can try to get the image for your page image Here is another page for lawsuits from the same website you found before here How EPA sees Port Arthur, may have conflict of interest issues because it is direct from the epa website here Hmthorner (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's actually interesting I'm looking at longitudinal studies that follow workers' health, and some say that there are significantly higher cancer mortality rates, while other studies show lower mortality rates. So..??? Bashthefash26 (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - Garshaw
Nice work! You've found a great niche to work in. For the conflicting data Ashley posted about, it is perfectly fine and actually preferable to present both sides of that coin. This would give a well rounded, non-biased presentation. Since you only have a few sections, I would expand on them as much as possible and use all the sources you can. Think about more potential sections to add to "scaffold". You don't necessarily need to fill these out, but they would develop the article a bit. Great job!GAA8423 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)