User talk:Dhk1016/sandbox

Really great first draft so far! The topic is interesting and very relevant to today. I’m not sure if you all were planning to go a little more in depth with Goals 2 and 3 the way you did with Goal 1, but I think it would be great if you did do a little more elaborating on those 2 and 3 sections. Also keep in mind that under the “Intended Key Results” part, the entire section is just one very long sentence, which might be a little overwhelming or make the writing confusing to some readers. So maybe try splitting up the sentence up or adding one or two. Also the “Annual Reports” sentence didn’t make complete sense and might need some re wording to make it sound clearer. Lastly, there are just a few minor grammatical errors you could fix throughout the article to make some sentences flow better. But other than that, I loved that you have a criticism section! I think its great that you guys are showing both sides of the story and argument. Super awesome first draft and super interesting points! It seems to be pretty well organized and thought out.--Fbingham7 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a great job of remaining neutral while at the same time providing very detailed and well organized information. I found the structure of this article to be very intuitive and accessible, which I think is key for having a good wikipedia entry! I agree with the above comments regarding providing a bit more information/ summation of the overarching goals of the EJ plan. I am intrigued to see what you all will add for the "Trump Administration" section, but you have already done a good job of displaying the relevance of the information that you have chosen to present. Wordsmithone (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is awesome! You do a great job of presenting the material from an unbiased standpoint. I think the section about permitting could use a bit more of an explanation - who are they permitting and for what? Additionally, I think the following phrase could use some clarification are in charge of detecting and enforcing environmental justice violations to environmental laws[5]. " The section on intended results could be broken into multiple sentences, it feels a little disorganized. The implementation section needs additional citations, as does the sentence about Naeema Muhammad. Overall, I think the article is really strong and most of these are nit-picky things. If you are looking to expand I think it could be helpful for readers to elaborate on the second and third goals and maybe explain how the environmental justice factors (water quality etc) will be measured or how they are hoping to partner with the different levels of intervention. Amberzeise (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there yet

I moved this back to your sandbox because it isn't quite ready for mainspace. For starters, Wikipedia articles need to be based primarily on independent sources - this is sourced almost entirely from the EPA. In addition, the first three sections are much too close to the original format. You need to write about the plan, not simply reproduce what the plan said about itself. The "Content and goals", "Intended key results" and "Implementation" sections need to be re-written entirely. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:47, 14

Thank you for your feedback. We are going to start revising it. Please check back with our page and let us know how we're doing. --Carlypmiller (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]