User talk:Berkeley17/sandbox

I think some of the statements made about people feelings or thoughts should be omitted. For example: “Pruitt does not believe that climate change is human driven.” I think the purpose of showing his skepticism comes through better by just showing what he has done policy-wise--which you show in the sentence after. It makes it more neutral while also showing his intent.

The green party section reads a lot like someone from the green party wrote it. I’d add more actual quotes from their mission statement or something.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbhughes (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter
Your outline is strong and, although they aren't entered right yet, your citations are good for this stage.

My biggest concern is that only 1 out of four substantive contributions/sections are on environmental justice. You could go into EJ on all four dimension easily and that would fit the remit for the class better. Y potential new section titles:

Trump Administration and Climate Justice (which could also cover interntional justice dimensions)

State Climate Policy and EJ (review how EJ plays in each state now and how it may/is evolving).

Race, class, and the positions of political parties and special interest groups (Jing) -- you could here cover how party affiliation and special interest affiliation intersects with income and race (an interesting question particularly given the working class nature of coal and rust belt communities)

You may need to build light scaffolding to support your deeper dive on justice, but that's what this class is about...

Seems like your contribution will be very strong though!

--EJustice (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yari Gutierrez Peer Review
Your overall outline is looking great. I totally agree that you should add a subsection on international climate justice because although its not your general focus it can be expanded on by future contributions from Wiki users. Trump Administration on Climate Change (Tina) love this section however; I do feel that it has a very clear biased on the way it is written. I understand it is very hard not to have a biased especially with this administration however, if we want to keep it neutral I would rearrange the wording used. Overall, you guys have it going on; best of luck looking forward to reading your wiki page once it is completed. (user:Optimisticallyhopeful) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)