User talk:Isabellekd/sandbox

Sarah's Peer Review
Specific Comments: - In the first sentence you need a unit of measure for the oil - You should add an explanation of why they need to publish reports on spills - I think you should add a sentence just stating that shell’s numbers are contradicted or challenged by local sources - Explain what oil bunkering is - I think you should include some information/data statistics from sources other than Shell since the numbers are disputed - When you say “government” is that the Nigerian government/ the US government?

General Comments: - I like that you mention the ecological & health problems - I think this is very well written and you do a good job of maintaining a neutral voice and telling the facts in a clear, concise way. But, I think you rely on Shell's own reporting slightly too much, and I think you can state that disputes exist or cite other sources to show that there is controversy without making an argument.SarahOll (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nicola's Peer Edit
I like the inclusion of the government's relationship with Shell Nigeria because it goes to show the intertwined relationship between a state and foreign companies can be. It is important to remember that the state ultimately can decide who is operating in the country, and Shell Nigeria would be moot without its relationship to the government. I also appreciate how quantitative this entry is, with specific metrics about how much oil was spilled. It helps understand the sheer presence of Shell in Nigeria and also helps convey the magnitude of spills.

A possible addition to the article could be a brief summary of why laws were passed in Nigeria that require JIV Reports. Was there a certain incident or spill that catalyzed the changing legislation?

My largest review for this article is that I think it would benefit from more specification. For example, you list two oil spills happening in 1970s, but a reader would benefit from name and maybe geographic location in order to put it in context and the specification could provide better details for people using this article as a starting point to learn about Shell Nigeria. The first sentence citing experts should include what experts, and what their qualifications are, in order to meet Wikipedia's mission of reliability. More points for specificity are 1. Oil bunkering is mentioned but it should be defined (it is defined in original section, but not your revision), 2. When Shell says spills are "operational spils"... what does that mean?

Sources Citation three needs to be redone. There is not even a title listed so I could separately google the article. Also, there are two sources from Oasis Earth, a consulting firm. Is it possible that are publishing reports with certain biases that might compromise impartiality? I only mention this because your last paragraph is solely informed by one of these sources. Adding some different corroborating sources on the topic would go a long way to making the paragraph for neutral and reliable. In order to bolster the impartiality of the article, more sources from Shell should be included, such as press releases or information from their website. Without this, I feel like this article, and particularly the oil spill response section is pretty biased against Shell.

Ideas! I know there are two of you doing this page, and after reading both of your articles, I think that you guys might want to update the page more than what you are doing. Specifically, get rid of the Recent News section-- the article is bound to change and things on it are no longer recent. It would require a lot of upkeep on the page to keep that actually current. Getting Rid of it would also help the flow of the page, make it more digestible.

Lampthecat (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)