Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of San Francisco/Environmental Law (Spring 2013)

Howdy
Welcome! Let me know if you have any questions.Adawg03 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've signed up as an online ambassador. I'm not sure what my work schedule will be like in the coming weeks/months (I'm a lawyer), but I'll try to help as I'm able. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Halliburton Loophole for Hydraulic Fracturing (Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act Exemptions)
I'm very concerned about this potential article. (I'd be very surprised to find a neutral article called "Halliburton Loophole".) I'd think about titling this article (as far as the CWA goes) 42 USC § 300h(d)(1) or something along those lines to refer to the section as codified, or perhaps Exemption from Clean Water Act for hydraulic fracturing. (I didn't see in my 30-second research where the CAA exemption is in particular.) It's fine to tell the history of the provision(s), and if that includes lobbying by Halliburton, then so be it, but you must be mindful of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Also be cautious of combining two provisions into a separate article just because they somehow both involve Halliburton. Another more general (and appropriate) topic would be Environmental regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Jen! Thank you so much for your post. We have decided to rename our topic as exemptions for hydraulic fracturing and will keep our post neutral. We really appreciate the input and hope you will continue with your oversight. Parathin81 (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on the articles
I was asked to take a look at some of your articles. I'm replying here rather than the talk pages of all the individual articles, since after the first couple it was clear there was quite a lot of consistency in the good points and the issues. First up, they all look pretty good: they have appropiate structures and sourcing. Consistent minor issues include: lack of wikiprojects; lack of incoming and outgoing links; use of jargon and americanisms ('land trusts', etc); overuse of acronyms; lack of context to other non-legal contemporary things that lead to the rulings; lack of solid lead (the first sentence of the article is meant to embody why the topic is important) and lack of categories (for example Category:1970 in the environment, Category:1970 in law and friends). Law books are laid out very particularly based on the assumption of certain kinds of access, this works because all readers are focused on the legal aspects. An encyclopedia needs a much broader variety of ways to navigate the content, readers might be focused on the legal aspects, or the political aspects, or particularly people, places or organisations. They might be interested in the developement over time, or the state of affairs at a particular benchmark. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)