User talk:Bsteele01/sandbox

Peer Review By Meghan:

General statements for the article: 1. you can try out the wikipedia formatting style, its super easy to create- the tool bar thats at the top while you are on just edit, there is a drop down menu for the type of text your writing, you have your whole thing in paragraph but you can change it to Title, Heading, sub heading, and so on and It will set up everything like how completed wikipedia pages look. Also trying to find a picture you could use would be cool!

2. Intro: the language sounds very wikipedia-y so good job on that, I like the brief timeline of how it was formed and the separation of mission into its own category instead of included at the top. you have god sources other than the group's webpage so nice job there too

3. Layout of content: I'm confused as to if kettleman city down falls under campaigns or if its a standalone heading- I think that will be cleared up by the formatting. I'm also thinking you should expand what you have under the campaigns section beyond the name?- maybe provide a little intro on how the section is going to go. Also are all the following bolded things after Kettlemen's city different parts of the campaign or are they separate projects? What makes it a campaign vs. a project? Side note: I'm not expecting you to respond to all these questions but I figure if I let you know as I read what questions pop into my head you will know how to make them not pop into other people's heads.

4. Body Information: - for the mission segment i think it could be helpful to include like a caveat sentence to be like: "they say their mission is" or from their homepage that way you are acknowledging that is isn't something you are citing as what they do but what they believe in/want to do- i think being mindful of this throughout the entirety of the page would be helpful for your guys because you cite their webpage a lot. Also in terms of plagiarism im not sure if you need quote around that bulleted list in their mission- definitely something to check up on - In the Kettlemen city section you use "lies" in the same way, two sentences in a row, maybe change that up? You could also link kettlemens city to their wiki page if they have one, or a google map location- just provide some extra info for someone to look into it. You could probably go into further the adverse health effect the community is experiencing and cite that, "other health issues" is kinda vague. "Kettleman City has been a defining struggle for the Environmental Justice Movement in its early days" this is kind of a funky sentence, maybe reword it to emphasize the point you're trying to make with it- that Kettleman City had protests that allied themselves with the EJ movement (you can also link to the EJ wiki page) and that their struggles informed the movement in an important way. You have either two projects within the Kettlemen city heading: the dump site and the incinerator- id suggest splitting them up using subheadings to clarify the distinction of the two and expand with more information on both of them. - incinerators: i think you need to cite the first sentence, also as a whole this section seems choppy. Though you are writing in an encyclopedic way i think cohesion from sentence to sentence is still important for a reader to easily understand what you are saying. Also this section seems kind of vague. You basically say incinerators are bad, green action fights incinerators. Id delve in further to all the listed incinerators green action is fighting against and get to more of an understanding as to how this work defines green action as a group - i think the toxic clean up section was really well done, maybe just hyperlink things like the navy and the place

Mtlang13 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)meghan

My group has decided to research Population Connection which can use a lot of help to better its page. We know that this group focuses on advancing family planning and healthcare, but I feel like we can broaden their introductory paragraph(s). Also, I'd like to add to their overall mission and how they are assisting in promoting better education for all. By adding references and data on this activist group, I believe we can make an outstanding difference for this organization. Bsteele01 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Brendan Steele

Article Recommendations
I think it would be beneficial to elaborate on why Angel split from Greenpeace and how the goals of the two organizations differ.

I think that this sentence should definitely be elaborated on.

"People should have the right to decide whether or not they want to live in an area with pollution."

Does Greenaction have any statements regarding this? Do they think that companies should hold town halls to communicate with residents? Do they advocate for the relocation of residents? What if an area is already polluted? What actions would Greenaction propose in that case? Has the organization made any statements about racial, ethnic, or class aspects of pollution?

This paragraph could really use some supporting details

"A main mission is to stop primary polluters and hold them accountable for their actions stemming from the government and big corporations that may be negatively affecting our health. We are working towards a world where everybody should be able to use their freedom of speech to participate in decision-making processes. Greenaction takes direct action to achieve equality all while stopping environmental racism and promoting justice."

How are corporations and governments held accountable? Does the group provide legal aid? The second sentence starts with the word WE.

In your victories section (another user recommend renaming it) you could elaborate on how these campaigns became successful and describe what actions were taken by the communities versus actions taken by Greenaction. ScroatScroat (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review feedback
intro-

okay overview of organization, the part about it's break off from Greenpeace leading to its founding was good information to include. Ariellegross (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I would change the first section slightly to provide more information on what GreenAction does. For example, maybe changing the last two sentences in the first section to be at the beginning so the reader knows more about what they do before we learn about their campaigns. Kennedy.aok (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Overall, a good start to the intro section. However, it felt more like the story of the group's formation rather than an overview of the organization as a whole. The formation is good information to include, but may be better in an origins or history sub-section. Also, the sentences talking about budget cuts are repetitive and the last sentence is somewhat broad. Lboconnell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kettlman City Campaign section seems out of order. You should try to follow the timeline of events rather than jumping back and forth. For example you, mention it being a large growing facility that mothers have protested and then move on to the construction and development of the site. You don't really need the second two sentences. Lboconnell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Incinerators section- 2nd-4th sentences are awkward and don't flow well. Reads like a bullet point list, consider revising. Information is good though! Lboconnell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Protect Indigenous Lands- Re-order first paragraph so it starts off talking about Greenaction's involvement in protecting indigenous lands and why. Then lead into their first campaign in Ward Valley. Lboconnell (talk)

The article was good, but try to avoid biased statements. It felt very pro-Greenaction, but I'm sure there are opponents to this organization that say otherwise. Lboconnell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Also make sure that the article is speaking in third person. Kennedy.aok (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

---> The last sentence of your intro still feels biased. Who says they are at the forefront? It's also a little repetitive (you mention Bradley Angel leaving multiple times). Under the mission section, remove the phrase "We are" unless you're directly quoting the organization- if you are, make that more clear. Your transition into the bulleted list of goals is awkward- consider removing "They...". You should probably say more about Hunters Point. Be careful with bias in describing the campaigns- if you're going to say businesses are affecting people's health, you either need strong evidence to back it up or to state that "there is concern", "people have speculated", "locals believe", etc. to achieve neutrality. Be careful saying that industries target people- again, this sounds biased. Put this through Grammarly (online spelling and grammar check that does better than google docs or word) for easy line editing. Also, read your article out loud- some of your sentences should be combined and restructured to make it sound less awkward. Consider linking the Wikipedia pages for the locations or groups of people you discuss. Gmhardesty (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments: The intro's wording is a bit clunky, it could use some cleaning up. The sentences are repetitive and don't flow logically, it could be written to be a little more concise. In the Mission section you should be careful to make it clear that this is the mission as stated by the organization itself. There's a sentence where you said "We are working towards..." be very careful, you don't want to use "we". Format the Campaign heading to encompass all of the following campaigns? Kettleman City - capitalizing "Environmental Justice Movement" probably isn't necessary? Be careful of your tone throughout this section, it is pretty clear that you are in support of Green Action. Phrases like "were able to fight off" are somewhat loaded. You also don't need to mention that Bradley Angel was a former member of Green Peace again. This section in particular is written less like an objective summary and more like a story, if that makes sense? There was a bit of that in the intro section too, but using phrases like "In King's County lies Kettleman City" is a bit unusual sounding in this type of article. Be careful too of how you introduce the conflict of the situation Incinerators - When you are writing this section make sure you're not supporting or defending Green Action's stance. If you're providing scientific info on the affects of incinerators make sure you state that this is info that Green Action is using to support their argument, and not that the wikipedia page is defending that stance, does that make sense? I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. The last sentence is not a complete thought. Fiyr grant (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review feedback
you need to rework the formatting of your article a little bit-- try to find the example that Dr. Kohl gave us of other EJ groups, or look up ones out there on Wikipedia. (i.e. headings, a references section, etc) Ariellegross (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)