Talk:Frasure Creek lawsuit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rogersjl6, Connor Sprinkle, Bryson H, Kylegeorgecoal333.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

These are my citations for the Frasure Creek page. Any suggestions?

Roberts, M., Richter, J., Martin, B., & Peterson, C. (2015). Evaluating Tree Growth and Soil Development on Restored Coal Mine Sites in Eastern Kentucky [PDF]. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina (UNC).

WINES, MICHAEL, and Kitty Bennett. 2014. "Clean Mining A Deception In Kentucky, Groups Say." New York Times, November 18. A12. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 20, 2018

Grooms, Katherine K. 2015. "Enforcing the Clean Water Act: The effect of state-level corruption on compliance." Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management 73, 50-78. ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost (accessed February 20, 2018).

“Going to Court for Clean Water.” Appalachian Voices, 17 Apr. 2015, appvoices.org/2015/04/08/going-to-court-for-clean-water-2/.

“An End to Frasure Creek's Water Violations in Kentucky - Finally.” Appalachian Voices, 17 Dec. 2015, appvoices.org/2015/12/10/frasure-creek-violations-ending/.

Bryson H (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sawyer's peer review

Pretty good article so far. A couple things to work on, but still okay. The lead section needs to be titled, but it is good information and tells the reader exactly what happened at Frasure Creek. Could probably go into more detail about the history of the creek in itself. All the other sections have really good information. The sources seem to be reliable and unbiased in the information that it is telling. Also, each linked source works and goes along with the correct information. I would probably add a few more sections to help the reader really understand the information even better. Other than that, making the lead section better and going more in depth, this article is starting to look really well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawyerFrye (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Robert Lee Davis III

Good Start to this wikipedia article. Not a lot on the spelling and grammar, though I believe Mcdowell is spelled McDowell, but I would verify that. Another thing I would say is that you can link certain words to wikipedia articles. For example, if you want to connect "Kentucky" to an article you can link it to the article regarding the state of Kentucky, therefore the reader can read about the subject even more. Overall the layout of the wikipedia looks great with all of the subtitles and the information. Citations look good other than 19-26; It seems that those are just links and not the citations themselves. Other than that the article looks great and I think you are off to a great start! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLeeDavis (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Daniel Jones

In the intro paragraph there is a sentence starting with, “The case went moved forward”, that needs to be revised but other wise the intro is very solid and detailed but also concise. The history section is good but the flow at times was a little off, maybe changing around some of the sentence structures would help with that. The clean Water act case section is detailed and cited very well. The flow of the information on the wiki page is good and seems unbiased with the citations working correctly and used appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesdh123 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jeremy Johnson

The sentence in the second topic describing what the CWA is may not be needed, it could instead just link to another Wikipedia page. The first sentence in the history section does not seem grammatically correct and is somewhat confusing to read. The title "Broken Regulations and the effects of Frasure Creek Mining" seems a bit wordy. I think the bullet list is a very effective way at presenting the information. You say at the start that 20,000 regulations were violated, then later say 200,000, are these the same regulations broken or are they different? Your article seems very unbiased which is well done and the overall tone seems to be fine. Your source number 15 links to EBSCOhost, which if I am not mistaken, only works from people with a campus login, if this is a journal, it should be cited differently as a journal and not just a link. While the information used from it seems fine, the WaterKeeper Alliance might be considered a bias source by some other editors. Other than those two potential issues with sources, the links seem to all work and it seems well done. The article seems all together well made, other than some wording and grammar. --Johnsonjr9

Comments from Matthew Stockton

-Tone is excellent, not biased and includes a great opening section that grabs the readers attention and alerts them to the direction of this article. -In the 2nd sentence the word "many" is used twice, maybe try changing one of those to help the sentence flow better. -The last sentence of the opening paragraph "The case went moved forward to the Kentucky..." seems like "went" should be "was". -Google searched some of the information on Frasure Creek History and nothing there seemed to be plagiarized. -Great job introducing some of the groups and acts "Coal Group" "Clean Water Act" and then following them up with their acronyms (ICG) (CWA) so that the readers will understand what you are referencing when using the acronyms. -Under the section "Clean Water Act case against Frasure Creek Mining..." the sentence that starts with "Legal representations..." needs to have some punctuation added or the sentence re-phrased. -Other than just those few sentence restructuring, overall the article flows well and the information is non biased and not plagiarized from what I searched. -Awesome job :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocktonmj (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Trey Williams

Overall, this article has a good layout. The first paragraph, I'm assuming is the lead section, needs to be formatted correctly with a title. One small grammar issue is present in this section. It is said that "The case went moved forward to the Kentucky Supreme Court" which does not make sense. It would be appropriate to say "The case then moved forward to the Kentucky Supreme Court in April of 2012." It would also be better to break up the second half of this sentence when discussing the ruling of the Supreme Court. The background section is pretty small and probably could do with more information if any is available. I don't see any evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, so that's good. Citations 19-26 are not formatted in the correct way, but that is easily fixed. The overall tone of this article is good, and relatively unbiased. Once the minor grammar and formatting/citation problems are fixed, and the background section is fleshed out this article would be excellent. Platowilliams (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Max Trachtenberg

So to start I would put the title above your lead statement to make the page look a bit more organized as the paragraph is kind of sticking out. Grammar and spelling look ok to me from a quick read-through. The history section looks to be a little small to me. I feel like there is more information available to expand this section and make it more detailed for final publication. You guys have cited things well and I don't notice any sort of a biased source. I really like how you organized the Broken Regulations and the effects of Frasure Creek Mining section it really gets the information across in a cool and interesting way. I would try and make the titles smaller for each section or break them up because some of them almost form a whole sentence. I would also try and link some of your terms in these sections to other wikipedia articles to make it more complete. Overall I like the page I think it has some fine tuning work to be done mainly layout changes and organization, but other than that information is accurate and non biased and is a good start towards a final product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtrachten (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)