User talk:Mac147/sandbox

You have a great start here. Consider the construction of some of your sentences, such as "Camden is a city situated on the Delaware River waterfront, as well as near an incinerator and a sewage plant." There's a bit of awkwardness here that makes it a little hard to understand exactly what you're saying. I might also consider playing around with the order of the page: environmental justice could come last, after all the issues are discussed. Or those issues could be strewn throughout. I would say the next step here is to expand the sections similar to the way you did with the Waterfront South section. Colbuendia71 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Holy cow! It looks like you started from scratch. What an undertaking. Well, at first glance it looks like you've got some traction and know your path.

I'll be talking about your page in sections, starting with "Air and Water Pollution":

1) I think you did a great job staying neutral here. You present this information factually and without trying to imply anything, which is great! I also think you manage notability well here, keeping the paragraph long enough to get out what information you need to get out, but short enough that it's not excessive. I don't find myself questioning why anything is there.

2) Regarding "CCMUA": Mostly the same comments from above, but: There are a few parts where I think you need to be more specific, for instance instead of saying "...causing adverse environmental effects in Camden", maybe say WHAT adverse environmental effects were being created. I know it may seem obvious but we have to state the obvious here on Wikipedia. Additionally, you mention that CCMUA looking for new ways to dispose of the sludge led to "the" incinerator... Which one? Again, be more specific. Name it, or at least say "an" incinerator.

3) I like the "Contamination in Waterfront South" section (well, I don't like what it's talking about. Awful.) but again I think there are some issues with specifics: "...one of [the two areas] has been emanating low-levels of radiation for approximately 80 years." Which area of the which two? Also, I don't like how the two sentences about the Covanta Camden Energy Recovery Center feel tagged-on; I think they belong in this section, but perhaps try to find a way to lead into the topic better. Right now it's a weird transition. Something like "One such facility, the Covanta..."

4) I don't have any major concerns about "Environmental Justice". Maybe it should be longer, because you spend three equally-sized parts of the page talking about what's wrong, so maybe the part about fighting it should be as long as the other three combined. Also, I think you should mention Michael Doyle's appearance on 60 Minutes. It makes it more relevant. Saying he was a local pastor is fine and dandy, but I'm sure there were a lot of local pastors upset with the situation. Why is Michael Doyle a prime example of civil unrest? Because he made his voice heard, specifically by going to CBS's 60 Minutes. If you need a source for that, check Camden After the Fall. I mention him and his visit to 60 Minutes on my Sandbox, too.

Overall, I think this is amazing, especially considering you started from scratch. My final comments: 1) You need to start linking to other pages. There are actually NO links to other pages right now, and that would not make the Wikipedia gods happy. 2) I really like your diversity of sources. I've been pulling almost exclusively from Camden After the Fall, and I need to quickly break that habit. So good job on that front.

Scary Ghosty (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Air and water pollution

The first sentence I think saying nuisance industries such as x,y,z which cause pollution would be more clear.

“Water contamination has been an issue in Camden for decades” be more specific, when did it become an issue and why? Talk about the old drainage system the city has. You almost get there with the sentence that starts “in the 1970s” but how it is now it is a run on sentence connecting two different points. I would stick to the pollution in the Delaware River (Link this to Delaware River Page) and what was found in the water, then move into talking about how this has effected residents.

CCMUA

“James Joyce, chair of the county's Democratic Party at the time, had his own ambitions in regard to establishing a sewage authority that clashed with Errichetti's, but Errichetti's political alliance with the county freeholders of Cherry Hill gave him an advantage and Joyce was forced to disband his County Sewerage Authority.” This sentence is too long. Break it into smaller thoughts. Maybe explain Errichettigs alliance with the free holders of Cherry Hill (link to Cherry Hill NJ Page).

Avoid using colons, semicolons and words like however. I gave this comment to the other person in our group as well. These things make sentences too long and too hard to follow. Generally what I’ve been doing is trying to write in the simplest language possible and thats been helping me stay clear and unbiased. It also helps me read through and understand clearly what I am trying to say.

All of the information in the section is really good and relevant.

Contamination in Waterfront South

This section is really well done!

Environmental Justice

Maybe say where Sacred Heart Church is located. After reading this section I think you might just be able to make it a part of the Contamination in Waterfront South section. All of the justice you mentioned took place in Waterfront south. Maybe include some more dates of when these events happened and talk a little bit about ongoing issues in this neighborhood and in Camden as a whole. Dacr348 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Watch verb tenses: you have some things in present that should be past and vice versa. Be clear on issues that are still occurring and those that have already passed. Look for ways to diversify citations away from Camden after the Fall: consider pulling the sources he used rather than just citing him. Look for keywords you can use to link to other Wiki pages. Also, consider finding some media for this: pictures of the CCMUA plant for example. Otherwise, I think this is a fantastic start, especially considering you started from scratch. Colbuendia71 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I think your addition of the Superfund Sites is really great. I think it puts the severity of the pollution in Camden into perspective and its very neutral. I also really like the addition of the South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection section is really good. It does a good job of showing the resistance of residents to these horrible decisions that are being forced onto them.

One thing I’m not sure about is the placement of court case. You have a whole section on South Camden so I want to argue that it should go in there but if there isn't much other environmental justice happening then maybe it should stay where it is. Its a good section so it could really fit under either subheading but placement might be something to play around with.

Look for more places to link. Especially in the Contamination in Waterfront South and Environmental Justice sections. They look like they could use a little more blue.

Overall I think you did a really awesome job with this section. You started with nothing and managed to turn this section into something substantial and well done on a very important issue!Dacr348 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review II
I'm glad to see that you are expanding horizontally instead of vertically; that is to say, you are beefing-up what you already have instead of going on to more things. What you had before was good, but I felt like more could still be said. Plus, I think if you're going to introduce an entirely new top-level section to the actual page, it needs to be well-refined. And I think by expanding horizontally, you're doing just that: refining! I guess I'll just talk about things by the order in which they appear, like last time:

1) Your new sentence in "Air and water pollution" is a good sentence and I think needs to be there, but it's awkwardly positioned at the end of the paragraph. I have a feeling that you already know it needs to be incorporated but you're just not sure where, so let me suggest that maybe it should go in the first sentence. As it reads now: "Situated on the Delaware River waterfront, the city of Camden contains many pollution-causing facilities, such as a trash incinerator and a sewage plant." As it could read: "Situated on the Delaware River waterfront, the city of Camden contains many pollution-causing facilities, such as a trash incinerator, a sewage plant, and 22 of New Jersey's combined sewer overflow outfalls." I know that this placement isn't necessarily perfect, but it's a good start I think. You'll figure it out I'm sure.

2) Again I like the new material but again I think it could be placed somewhere else. This time, I think you're restating something you already talk about. From the already-existing material: "James Joyce, chair of the county's Democratic Party at the time, had his own ambitions in regard to establishing a sewage authority that clashed with Errichetti's. Errichetti's political alliance with the county freeholders of Cherry Hill gave him an advantage and Joyce was forced to disband his County Sewerage Authority." Your new paragraph is basically this but more detailed. Try replacing this old sentence with your new information. You could keep them separate paragraphs, but definitely try not to say the same thing twice. You could even try removing the sentence and putting it in your new paragraph where appropriate. Now that I think about it, I like that solution most.

3) Your Superfund sites section seems a bit disconnected, but I couldn't really tell you why. Primarily I think it stems from all of the talk of Welsbach/GGM taking a 180 degree turn into Martin Aron, Inc. Reading this section, when you suddenly switched topics it was a bit jarring. Otherwise, I'm glad this section is here. Reading what is above this section about radiated areas of Camden, my reaction was, "What?! I need to read up on this." Turns out, its extremely hard to find information about that. Typically I would turn to Wikipedia, but uh... yea. So I'm glad to see that you're expanding on what was said before, especially here because its such an attention-grabbing thing that I think readers would be interested to know more about.

4) Still in Superfund sites, I think you mention some things about Welsbach and GGM that don't really matter, for instance when they went out of business and the fact that they had no successors. Also, you skip from the 1940s to 1981. Does nothing related happen for that long? If that's the case, I would say that right after the 1940s sentence, you end the paragraph and the 1981 sentence should be the start of the next paragraph.

5) Your last paragraph, I don't have anything major to say. I guess I just have one question: were there any long-lasting outcomes (besides the company losing millions of dollars) that came from the end of the court case? You sometimes hear about court cases setting the standard for similar cases, or sometimes they decide what is constitutional based on the outcome of the case.

I can't tell you enough that I think you really have something here. I said it last time but I'll say it again: it's really impressive that you started from scratch with your own, entirely new section. Looks good! Scary Ghosty (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on round 2: This looks really great. I'm really impressed by the work you've done here and the expansions in this second round of work. I think the addition of the Superfund sites is crucial to the success of the section. It's well documented and informative throughout. Great work. Colbuendia71 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)