User talk:Mitchellka/sandbox

Kris's peer review
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

- Everything addressed in the article seems to be relevant to the Dan River coal ash/slurry spill to include, Duke Energy's action's taken, EPA involvement and response, environmental impacts, causes of the incident, impacts, and regulation impacts and involvement.

Is there anything that distracted you?

- nothing about the article in particular distracted me except for I wondered about source info in the Regulation section that did not have citations to refer to any facts/figures, there was a lot of specific details that someone may want to refer to in the case a statement were to be challenged.

Is the article neutral?

- The article appears to be neutral in content, giving equal attention to facts to provide different views based on importance.

Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- I do not think so, they article is well written covering the facts of the matter.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

- I think the viewpoints are covered equally representing impacts, effects, and involvement/responses from those responsible and those who provide oversight to ensure action is taken to rectify the situation

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- The links work and are relevant to the claims. As noted earlier some citation may be useful in the Regulation section to backup statements.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference?

- Each fact was supported by appropriate and reliable references except for again the Regulation section, which is very well written and informative with great details. I just think the addition of citations would make it even better. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

- The information came from a variety of sources to include appropriate references that were not biased.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

- Everything appears to be up to date. I think each contributor provided valuable information and together the team did a great job, well done! Kpmia305 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Carter Nelson
I just finished scrolling through the article and noticed that there're a few sections that are blank. I would make sure to deleted them if you don't have any contents for the section. I found the CNN article part to be slightly biased. under the causes section at the end back to back sentences start with these I would switch the second one to they or combine the sentences. "Coal ash can coat and degrade the habitats of aquatic animals as well as cause direct harm to certain organisms" I would add that the coal ash is toxic and remove the next sentence because it is repeating a sentence from the last section. Insert the amount that Duke paid North Carolina. I thought the article was unbiased besides the section that I noted. The google search that I did I didn't find any plagiarism and thought that y'all did a great job of citing sources. I thought that this article was written very well and its flow was great. Also, the amount of information in each section is very even which is good to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.249.56 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments From Halee
Lead section: I do not see any citations here. Where is this information coming from? Did this happen in 2017?

Incident section: this section is a little redundant when talking about Duke Energy's efforts to clean up the spill.

Causes section: there are sentences that do not flow/not concise in this section. Review the sentence that starts with "Coal companies have found the cheapest...". Environmental impacts should not be capitalized.

Environmental section: be sure to cite things in the last few sentences of the first paragraph of this section.

Regulation section: careful with bias toward the "pro-industry governor". There are no citations in this section. Ratcliffhn (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Ethan There are three big things that I see that need work. One, tidy up the lead section. The lead section should not be two different sections. The lead section describes what the subject is in a nutshell and should only be a few sections, and to me it seems like you have two of them. Two, you have two tables of contents. The one that is not right below your lead section needs to be deleted, because it is not necessary and looks unorganized. Three, you need to make sure you do more than just provide the links to your sources, it needs to be an actual citation. There is an option when citing a source in Wikipedia to add in your own information and then it will cite it for you based off of what you put in. That will provide a Wikipedia appropriate citation to where you will not plagiarize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan harris11 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sawyer's peer review
So far, this article is coming along well. A few minor grammatical errors, but other than that the information is good. Every source you have seems to be unbiased other than the CNN article, which could be seen as biased. The lead section seems to be pretty good because it doesn't give too much information, but it tells you exactly what happened at the Dan River Coal ash spill. The article is designed very well and has no confusing headlines or things that are out of place. Obviously, just put information in the headlines that do not have any information or just delete them. All the connected links work when you click on them. It looks like each member contributed equally and that all of the information is up to date. Keep working to improve clarity and information and the article is really good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawyerFrye (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Kyle's peer review
I enjoyed this topic and it was very informational. I love all the content that you had to share and all of the statistics. The lead was direct and too the point which is important with that section. I was wondering if there was a history section but I figured with this topic there is not much history for you to share about. Also I ust noticed the citations and how they can be properly placed with the citation machine on Wiki. So once that is cleaned up I would say that it all looks pretty good. I enjoyed reading.