User talk:Wikibeanie/sandbox

Hello
This is my personal talk page.Wikibeanie (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review from Joey (Section 104)
Hello Friends, I just read the entire article throughly. This is article has a great overview of the current environmental policy. I see a clear introduction that briefly explains the article and most of the writings are properly cited from reliable sources. The content is great and easy to follow. My concern is that how is the clean water rule benefit or harm the civilian or is it a good model for other states/countries to follow. Since I only saw the political aspect of this issue, how is this related to the social, economical, and even international contexts? Joeyespm163ac (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Thomas Section 104
Let me start by saying that this is a great article. I believe that the topic is of the utmost importance to Environmental Justice and is especially timely. I found the introduction to provide a concise overview of the article. The article as a whole is well structured and cohesive.

The first comment I have is regarding the citation on the key provisions section, why is this cited? Is this a typo or does this imply that the whole section is cited by that source? Again in the key provisions section much of the information is not accompanied with the relevant sources. This addition of sources here is not only necessary but would make this section much stronger. An addition I advice you make is to add a section discussing some specific instances where this law has positively influenced environmental justice. Overall great job! Tommyupdate (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Natalia's response to Peer Reviews
Thank you so much for your suggestions! I agree, we need more EJ implications in the article. As far as the citation on the "Key Provisions" section goes, there is a single source that has all of the information-- this is why I cited the header. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way to indicate this citation? SemiTalia (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Ashley
Hi all, This is looking really solid! The lead section reflects the key information well and the subtopics are all relevant and neutral. One organizational suggestion I would make is to separate "Background" and "Development" into two individual subtopics (i.e. chop off Background after you talk about the two court cases) as I think there's enough information under each to balance it out and flow better. Keep up the great work! Ashley.boots (talk)

Goka's response to feedback
Thanks Ashley for the feedback! I will definitely look over that section and remove excess information! Gqueen123 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

David's response to suggestions
The suggestions were great and I believe they were being considered within our group already. A good dimension will be to look at the stakeholders and perhaps we may find an ej angle there we can write about. Thanks again. Avina.david (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Irene's response to feedback
Thank you for all the formatting suggestions and we are taking seriously the need for more of an EJ angle in our content. Good point about citing an entire section from one source. It would improve the quality to have more than one source for any particular section. Wikibeanie (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)