User talk:Hlevy8/sandbox

Pollution Prevention Peer Review
The first sentence is concise and straight to the point. I can read the first sentence and understand the gist of the topic. The lead section offers a nice summary. I can tell what the article will be about and what to expect. However, I would add some wiki links like waste reduction, pollution, Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, and The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990. In case you do not know how to wiki link just highlight the words you want to link, press the button that has the link symbol, and Wikipedia should already generate options for you. Then just click which one you want, and you are done! Overall the lead section is well written with enough information to explain the article without going into too much confusing detail.

It is amazing how much you have written, and it shows that you have a fantastic understanding of the topic already. However, I feel that all the information in your first section (P2 in Industrial Processes) doesn’t all fit under the category. I feel like you should have a section just on strategies for Pollution Prevention before P2 in Industrial Process. This way you can talk about all the strategies that go towards this topic then P2 in Industrial Processes can just talk about the effects of P2 on industries. For example, I think most of your second paragraph under P2 in Industrial Processes should be in its own section with the strategies society can use to prevent pollution. Then you can talk about the effects of these strategies in the next section. Your last section with the acts and amendment is perfect. All the information is relative to the section. Overall, your layout is well organized. My only suggestion is a new section for strategies for pollution prevention. Layout would be: lead section, strategies, P2 in Industrial Process, and then Amendments.

I think this article is well balanced between the explanation of pollution prevention and its effects. Everything seems to be represented equally with its importance and nothing seems off topic. In fact, everything is stated concisely, and every line has valuable information toward the topic. Nothing seems to be missing or underrepresented. Overall your balance in this article is impeccable. Keep up the good work!

Overall the article has a very neutral and analytical tone. My only thought is when you talk about industry you only show pollution prevention in a good light. Maybe to balance this out you can talk about why some industries would not partake in this or why some are unwilling. Or I think comparing companies that did and did not prevent pollution and consequences/benefits they faced afterward would also balance out the article. I guess what I’m trying to say is in theory you make it sound like it’s a perfect solution for everyone. I feel like you should either talk about some negatives or reasons why companies don’t prevent pollution or give some real-life examples for how it is the perfect solution. See below for further thoughts.

Excellent job finding reliable sources since they all seem to be peer reviewed. Also, I was able to find all your information on the sources, so the information is relevant to the article. However, right now you have blocks of text that go to one citation. I would suggest adding more sources. Even if the sources say the same thing knowing that information comes from multiple sources makes it even more trustworthy.

Other suggestions:

One thing that would help break up text and make the article more pleasing to the eye is when you are writing all the conditions the EPA must complete, I think it would be better to do this in a list that way its not just a wall of text. Using a bulleted or numbered list would be the best way to present this information.

I found this interesting book that goes through experiments of industries who prevented pollution and the money they saved. Citing these examples would help balance your article and show the strategies are as good as it sounds and its not just theory. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/23/22593.pdf

Kroberts73 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)