User talk:Sunnylev/sandbox

Observations: The progress that your team has establish is very well done. I feel that there is a lot of information and cited evidence that is nicely formatting the flow of your wiki page. Even without a title or a general history/background, it was simple to deduce the topic on your group. Some pointers that I would like to see at the end of your process is to switch some of the topics under other sub-topics, if there is a connection between articles. Try not to stray too far away from the point your team is trying to make, because that can be easily made since information around environmental justice impacts on indigenous groups. Oh, and if you guys haven't thought about it, but it would be pretty neat if you can add in an image or video, to place more of a dynamic dimension to your page. Keep up the good work. --TerryDelRey March 10, 2017 11:40PM ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your topic is clear and have begun to develop your article very well. It seems like you are still trying to expand on some of the ideas you've already presented (which is a good sign). I like your organization and the sub sections at play, as they reinforce they historical oppression on the reservation. However, I think it's important that after clearing up the historical and environmental degradation/health effects that are going on in the Skull Valley reservation, that you immediately focus on expanding the most current issues and their relationship with the new Trump Administration. For example, how will some of their progress be undone with Trump? How gravely will it be affected? Maybe something cool to see is a comparison of how the reservation and community was doing during the Obama or Bush administration/ as compared to Trump (even though is hasn't been long). Overall, great job on your article! Can't wait to see more.Xicusunshine (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC) _________

Headed in a good direction. The lead can be cleaned up a bit more. A general reordering of topics and subtopics will help with the flow and organize the article better. Also, just be wary of loaded words that may convey a biased tone. While there is a history section, maybe include something about present organization/demographics (income, education, etc) of the tribe as so far, the page doesn't highlight the tribe enough. Might I suggest a section on resistance/push back from tribe against feds?

ex.   1. Lead 2. History 3. Landbase 4. Tribal Govt 5. UN Declaration 6. EJ Concerns * Nuclear Waste * Economic exploitation * Health Concerns * VX Nerve Agent Storage and Testing 7. Drumpf 8. Resistance Figgyverde (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback y'all! I really like the point that you make about the organization of the page, and will definitely implement that before we publish the article. I will also be on the lookout for any loaded language that we use in our page. I also really like the idea of incorporating some visuals for the page. It is just difficult to the very stringent rules that wikipedia has. Ideally it would be nice to be able to go out to the reservation and take photos, but I am not sure that that will be possible. I agree that we sometimes stray a bit away from the central point of the article and so will try to rein that in a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnylev (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, great feedback! We definitely will restructure and move things around once we have all of the information. I agree that there's some overlap in certain sections, and we will probably take some info away as well as add some new stuff. In general I think we can try not to stray from the topic, but since we're technically adding to an existing page, it is likely that we will keep some information regarding the tribe that is not related to Environmental Justice. As far as adding a photo, to avoid copyrights, perhaps we could just take a generic photo of a nearby landscape, although that wouldn't necessarily have any meaning. It might be worth investigating how to legally find an applicable photo. Also, present organization and demographics is a great idea, although we may not get to that if we want to find more information on the more central ideas. Regardless, your outline for the headings is perfect, and i presume we will use something like that. Laughiumfuntrate (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with the feedback; I found it useful and I think we'll apply the critiques, particularly the parts about adding more structure to the article. I agree with my group members that adding a photo would be nice, so I'd like to discuss ways we can make that happen. As to the article having a "point"/"message," I'm not sure I agree with that criticism. These articles are supposed to be fact-based, rather than argument-based, so there's no "thesis" tying the different segments together. Nonetheless, I do agree that the different segments could be tied together in a more coherent fashion, as I mentioned earlier. BuCHanan76*~* (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)BuCHanan76*~*

Feedback from Garrison
Well done so far! Just to confirm - you are only editing the Environmental Justice Concerns section, correct? I would recommend adding an introductory paragraph here - what is Environmental Justice and how does it effect this reservation generally? Please read through and do some more editing, there were some grammatical errors and some sentences that did not quite make sense to me. For example, first sentence of Economic Manipulation section "try" should be "trying".

Are there any photos you could add? Overall, there is good linking and sourcing, however, the Nuclear Wast Policy Act section doesn't have any sources in it.

Section headers shouldn't be links. There are three sections that do not have anything in them - there should be at least a short summary in each section by this point.

Keep up the great work! California1990 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)