User talk:Stocktonmj/sandbox

Confusing as to what the intro paragraph is. I am assuming it is the 'first draft work' but that doesn't seem to try in well with the rest of the article. Good information within the 'first article work casey'. There appears to be an emotional bias throughout this section. Maybe try to write it with less ethos. Other than that, I think there is a lot of good information within it and doesn't need much editing. Organize the article with the proper wiki format. Will make the article seem much more organized and make it easier to read. Also include citations throughout the article rather than at one spot within the article. 'First article work matthew'- very informational and seems to be organized well. add the citation throughout the section and I think it would be really good. Overall a really good article. Just take out any unneeding group member talk on the page and organize using the wiki format and I think it will be very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownrs28608 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Planned Work

-For our page on Jack Spadaro, we each plan on approaching a different section of Spadaro's timeline in the coal industry. Casey is going to start off the page giving a summary of Jack, formatting it so that readers will have a quick understanding of the figure that this article is on. He will then continue into Jack's early years, and talk about specifics such as his education and how he got started with Coal Mining. Matt will continue with providing information on Sparado's whistle blowing efforts, and that large part of his life, along with providing information into the large sludge spill in Eastern Kentucky that Sparado was intricately involved in. Jacob is going to work on the latter half of the article, talking about the buffalo creek disaster as well as Jack's activism with the coal mines and his presence as an environmental expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocktonmj (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

BRYANT, ANNIE, et al. "Interview with Jack Spadaro: On Being a Whistleblower For Mine Safety and Health." Appalachian Journal, vol. 34, no. 3/4, 2007, pp. 326-350. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40934637.

Dao, James. "Mine Safety Official Critical of Policies Faces Firing." The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Nov. 2003, www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/us/mine-safety-official-critical-of-policies-faces-firing.html.

"Environmental Justice Case Study: Buffalo Creek Disaster." Logan County Justice Page, umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/buffalo.html.

Leung, Rebecca. "A Toxic Cover-Up?" CBS News, CBS Interactive, 6 Apr. 2004, www.cbsnews.com/news/a-toxic-cover-up/.

Sewell, Brian. "Remembering Buffalo Creek." Appalachian Voices, 11 Mar. 2015, appvoices.org/2012/02/21/remembering-buffalo-creek/.

Good info but un organized and could use one person editing the whole thing instead of separate submissions. Needs to be made into a wikipedia page with headers and the planned work deleted of the page and just left in the talk. some information seemed repeated by other people and could be read over to check for that when separating into the sections. 3/20/18

Peer Review
This article feels a little disjointed and kind of hard to follow. I didnt notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the articles. I noticed that only one source was sighted throughout the whole article. The article had really great info it just needs more structure and formatting added to it. Another thing is to remove the planned work from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattersac (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Robert Lee Davis III
Good start on information but a lot of work to be done on this document. First of all there are no established headers. Its very disorganized without headers or sub-headers. For example you should add an "introduction" title to the start of the document and begin talking about Jack Spedaro. You have yet to add citations to the document and while there have been references entered in there are not in text citations yet; this needs to be added immediately. Spelling in grammar is in decent shape; there are a few mistakes but nothing huge. Another big thing you need is to link certain words with other wikipedia articles, this way the reader can explore more on the topic. For example, "Logan County" can be connected to the "Logan County, WV" article. A lot of work, but good start on information. Just focus on your layout and the citations part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLeeDavis (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hannah Mellon
Good work on getting the article started! However, one thing that would definitely help make it more readable would be to get it in the correct format. Here is a link to the wikipedia page that gives you a code that will format your page correctly and create a table of contents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TOC_left

Your lead section is very good and packed with a lot of information, so once you get the format down it will come together very nicely. Make sure section headings are clearly shown so the reader will know exactly what you are talking about. Make sure all information is being properly cited at the end of the sentence after the punctuation. Also link corresponding articles to words and terms which might need further research for certain readers uninitiated with the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellonhe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Evan Batchelor
As others have said, formatting could use some work. It's missing a lot of citations. Every specific fact needs to be sourced on that line. All claims on the Buffalo Creek disaster need to be cited. There's only one direct citation. All actions taken against Mr. Spadero need to be cited. The outcomes of the investigation need to be cited.

In the paragraph, "There were many different accusations and claims..." strike the comma from the final "fixed". It is unnecessary with the conjunction. The final paragraph seems to one long run on sentence and one short one. Consider revising.

In the second paragraph, "Sparado carried out an investigation with his counterparts, this investigation led to the discovery of a previous spill at the same confinement that held the coal slurry which spilled out into Matin County." is problematic. The misspellings of names aside, consider, "In conjunction with his counterparts at the [appropriate agency] Jack Spadero investigated the October 2000 spill. During the course of that investigation, he(or they, not 100% sure how to attribute the credit here) discovered a previous spill at the same coal slurry confinement dating to 1993." Granted, the spill may have happened earlier, that needs to be determined, but the company was aware of the spill at that point according to your article which I assume is properly sourced if not cited. You may need to change the paragraph to avoid redundancy here, but this is a prime example of poor flow.

Alternatively, a simpler solution would be to change the sentence to "...his counterparts, which lead to the discovery of a previous spill at the same coal slurry confinement site in ." Remember to cite this, and the source claiming the company was aware of the problem.

The flow is kind of choppy, consider looking at other biographical pages as a model. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Provide more biographical information in the lead section in if possible. If there's a public domain picture of Mr. Spadero, that might help. More links on the page wouldn't hurt, as it relates to major events such as the Buffalo Creek disaster, Martin County Coal Slurry spill, etc. Tone and neutral language on last three paragraphs could be improved, you may be stating facts but the tone of said facts may call them into question. Note that "References" are typically used in wikipedia pages, not bibliographies. Overall, good work, but really needs citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batchelorec (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Connor Sprinkle
There are a lot of good facts in this article and really any spelling issues. Yet the format of this article needs a lot of help. Sections titles will need tone added instead of names, and the "planned work section" should be taken out very soon. Also, the sentences are choppy and many of them start out with the same word. It almost gets repetitive and does not sound as professional. There are good facts present but they could be presented in a different way. Some of the information that is given in the lead section could be spread out through the article instead of packing it all at the beginning. The tone of this article is a little off but I think if you change your sentence layout, make it less choppy, add section titles, and fix the lead section the tone will be fixed. Also, all of these facts need to be backed up with not only citations at the bottom of the sheet but in-text citations all throughout the text. Once all these things are fixed this article will be in much better shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Sprinkle (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Grayson B. Farmer
Your Wikipedia article has some good information within it but it was really hard to follow. I would suggest following the format guidelines to help readers follow along. This article didn't have many citations and most of this information is not common knowledge. Where each user worked on a different piece of the article, the information because a little redundant and I felt as if I was reading the same thing over and over. There were some sentences that could be combined to help the information flow better. I didn't think this article was biased and of the information is combined and reorganized it would help out tremendously. Farmergb (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)