User talk:Julienpleb/Cancer Alley

Well done. You use multiple sources and present a neutral point of view. I did not think this was biased. Lyndon Jamison (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I can tell that you're trying to remain objective, which is difficult to do with such a blatantly inhumane issue. You do well, except for some single words like "slowly" and "strongly" that, while providing information, may suggest bias. It's one-word tweaks that can really help you curve that tone, like using "gradually" instead of slowly. A thesaurus will give you quick help. Other than that, it looks like a very promising start. Good sources. Works well with the existing Cancer Ally page. Ofeuch1 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC).

I agree that there is some challenge around objectivity on this highly charged issue. A phrase like "gradually stripped back its standards" might be replaced with "redeveloped pollution standards resulting in less overall regulation" or something more neutral like that -- and something where maybe you can have a fact that proves it. (Ex. number of inspections/fines?) I also think there could be a stronger connection to Cancer Alley in that paragraph. Are there any concrete effects of decreased regulation that you can find in your sources? The more you tie it back to River Parishes, the better. Then, under the 'different perspectives' section, you could also strive to include the voices of activists. You could also reframe the 'skeptics' more specifically around what evidence they use to refute it, rather than the fact of the op-ed. In other words, focus this section more on the *content* of the disagreement (evidence, statistics, arguments, etc.) rather than on the episodes that define the disagreement. Brendankarch (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)