User talk:Kinglj1

Welcome
Hello, Kinglj1 and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Kinglj1, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

- Sources: https://www.dominionenergy.com/about-us/making-energy/coal-oil/virginia-city-hybrid-energy-center

http://wcyb.com/news/virginia-news/virginia-city-hybrid-energy-center-hits-five-year-anniversary

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy006.nclive.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=65b8decf-67d0-45a0-93bc-903d98c25740%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=000309374000016&db=edswsc

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy006.nclive.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=65b8decf-67d0-45a0-93bc-903d98c25740%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=87083267&db=mth

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy006.nclive.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=65b8decf-67d0-45a0-93bc-903d98c25740%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsgcl.229466657&db=edsgbc

Comments From Logan King
Grammar and Spelling: The lead and background sections were well-written and did not have any grammatical errors. In the Causes section, I think you meant to put "by" after the word "impacted" in the first sentence. The second bullet of the first set of bullets has "water" as redundant in the sentence. The "water concerns" at the end of the sentence could be taken out so it is not said twice in the sentence. The last sentence of the next bullet, I think that "be able to" should be added after "would". There were no grammatical errors in the Efforts section, and it was well-written.

Bias and tone: The list of concerns in the Background section appears to be slightly biased against the pipeline because it is outlining all the concerns and problems. A shorter might be beneficial and just give examples of some issues instead of all of the possible issues. The beginning of the Causes section appeared a little biased against the pipeline, but it was really good that benefits of the pipeline were added at the end to balance it out. The Efforts section was biased and just gave the facts about some ways people are opposing the pipeline.

Resources: All sections except the Lead and the Activities sections were cited correctly. These two sections needed to cite through Wikipedia where just a number shows up where the citation is, not the title of the article. Also, the sources need to just be included in the Resources section, not in the Activities section itself. None of the sources or facts appear to be plagiarized and there is a citation for all facts and sources were used in the appropriate places.

General: In the Lead section, the last paragraph was kind of confusing and I did not know what eminent domain was, and was lost. It might be beneficial to explain a little more what the company is trying to accomplish when they met opposition. The lead was good for the most part though and did not have any other problems. There is not title for the resources section, and the Governance and Leadership sections are blank titles and need to be removed if no information is going to be placed there. Overall the article was well done and well-written. Kinglj1 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)