User talk:Danielisaiahhill/sandbox

-- (I wasn't sure if we were individually supposed to reply to all the peer reviews or as a group) Thank you three for the feedback! We have definitely expanded on our draft since the peer reviews and have added more info and clarified some terminology in each section, and I also have added specific regulations that are thought to be endangered (as cited in the lawsuit). Unfortunately, we are not finding as many secondary sources or updates talking about the lawsuit (especially in a EJ perspective), but we hope that we have been able to lay the framework down for this wiki article based on the information currently available. Nliu132 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello classmates, I can see that your article is still very much a work in progress (a lot of it hasn't been written yet), and probably not yet ready for peer review. Still, review it I must and shall. Your sources look great! I imagine you will be able to pull a lot of good information from the documents you've found, and really fill out this article. I hope you will be augmenting the lead section with more information regarding the various subsections, as it is currently very short (but I suspect you're planning to). The "main focus" paragraph doesn't exist yet. I anticipate that when it gets inserted, environmental justice will be much more of a presence in the article... so enough said on that. I have just a few grammatical and word-choice issues to bring to your attention. In the context of the first sentence in the "Provisions" paragraph, the word "whom" should be changed to "who." The first comma in that sentence is unnecessary. In the "Lawsuit/Updates" section, the last sentence is very vague (what are the "many ways" in which the executive order eliminates safeguards? Among what "other things," specifically?). Specifying exactly what you mean there (and in general) will make the article more informative and encyclopedic. That's it for now, keep up the good work!E.M. Delay (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the review! Yeah, the sources we have are awesome pertaining to this executive order. I am going to go through them right now and will bolster our current sections. Also, I went forward with making the grammatical changes to the "provisions" section, as that was the section I worked on. Thanks for the review. Danielisaiahhill (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review # 2
The article isn't polished yet, but there is a sense of direction here. In the Lawsuit/Updates section, as mentioned above, the last sentence should be changed. Mention a few of the safeguards being eliminated, since right now it only adds more questions than it answers. I also recommend talking about the praise and criticism that has been given to the EO, in two different sections. In addition, there might be some information online about how the EO has already been used, and that would definitely be a good addition to the article. As for the sources, they seem to cover the topic quite well. It might also be beneficial to add some secondary sources that describe the lawsuit itself, if they exist. As a minor note, make sure to not do "citation overkill". If consecutive sentences use the same source, just put that one source at the end of the section to make the article cleaner. XXESPM163Xx (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the feedback. I think the "praise and criticisms" of the EO will be represented in both the lawsuit (criticisms) as well as the reasons for why it was implemented (praise). If I come across any information outside of those two things however I will make sure to add separate sections par your advice. I agree about adding info of how it has been used as well. Lastly, thanks for the citation overkill tip, as I totally am at fault for that. Danielisaiahhill (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Howdy, First off, what I like about your article so far is that a clear sense of what this article will attend to (the executive order and the controversies surrounding it) has already been laid out. By having your foundation established at the outset y'all will, I think, be able to fill in the necessary details as they arise in your research without having to alter the overall arc of your article too much. I think it might be useful to add some kind of background information on this executive order. For example, I think it might be interesting to give a short history on the on this executive order (e.g., Trump's campaigning, partly, on this very issue and where such a sentiment may come from) so as to establish some sense of the political space from which such an executive order would rise. In terms of grammar and the like, what the two previous posts have pointed out is all that needs to be said. Another suggestion I have would be create a "Controversies" section. That way y'all can basically give yourselves the ability to be exhaustive with regards to environmental justice without framing it as something that lacks the required level of objectivity (there are obvious reasons you shouldn't be biased here, but I think a section framed as "Controversies" is itself a lot less controversial than one framed as "Environmental Justice", but I could be really wrong).

Mahollis (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

--Hey, thanks for the review. I appreciate the complement on our article's foundation, as that is really what we strove to accomplish. In regards to the controversies section, do you think that it's too broad? I feel like many things could fall under that section (eg. the lawsuit, EJ, PAYGO feasibility) which could all be deserving of their own categories... I'll definitely keep it in mind as I go forward. Danielisaiahhill (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Garrison
•	Overall, good job so far! The article is well structured and has a neutral tone.

•	You’ve done a great job linking to other articles and having other articles link to this one.

•	Are there any photos or graphics you could add to the page as visual aids?

•	I think that overall the article could use a little more substance, there’s room to expand in some sections. I think the effects section could especially be expanded on.

•	Are there any examples of regulations that have been cut due to this EO? I realize it may be too early to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California1990 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)