Jump to content

Talk:Hobet Coal Mine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Hilda a (talk | contribs)
Peer-review notes
Hilda a (talk | contribs)
Deleted "are" from "here are is my peer-review"
Line 13: Line 13:




Here are is my peer-review:
Here is my peer-review:


'''Lead Section'''
'''Lead Section'''

Revision as of 02:30, 12 March 2017

Hello, classmates, You can edit the new Hobet Mine page here (in my sandbox). I hope we're all on the same page about working on the mine rather than the county. Please don't hesitate (obviously) to change any of what I wrote, if you have improvements. I put in some tentative subtopics, but I'm not married to them. It was more for the sake of having something to turn in. Am I understanding correctly that we are each supposed to be in charge of one specific subtopic for the semester? Is the lead section a group thing, then, or is that one of the subtopics? I would guess it's a group thing. I made a good start on the lead paragraph. Please go ahead and fill it out!E.M. Delay (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some demographics to the economic subsection, because they help explain why this is an instance of environmental injustice, as we have discussed.E.M. Delay (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! Here are my notes on this wiki article:

The structure of the page fit well, and the lead did not favor a certain section over others, but I would go through and edit some of the sentencing. It was a little broken up, versus flowing. Each section was equally developed though I did think you could switch some things around and add more information. For example, in the Union section under History, I would add the reason the strikes occurred, if you can find that information. Under the EJ Activism section under History, I would find another incident that occurred, use more information for the one you have, or add the litigation information from the Future Developments section and erase it from that section. In the Ownership and Bankruptcy section under Economics, I would keep the information here, but take it out of the history section, since this is repetitive information. In the Human Health Impacts section under Environmental Health Impacts, I would add the results of a study on the health impacts of the production of coal using mountaintop removal. I don't know what the numbers in the parentheses represent; if they don't mean anything, you should remove them. Lastly, I think if you can find a picture and get the rights to it, you should add it.

Jlafrentz1 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my peer-review:

Lead Section • Easy to understand and follow • Good overview of the subtopics Suggestions: Citations needed; do not understand how “increasing productivity encouraged workers to successfully strike for their health... “ How did increasing in productivity encourage workers to strike for their health?

Structure • Sections are easy to understand • Clear reason for where the sections are Suggestions: I would recommend adding demographics of race into the article (I think this is an important aspect that should not be left out)--if applicable it can enhance why this is an environmental justice issue. Adding images would be beneficial as well to demonstrate the severity of the issue.

Balance Coverage • No one aspect of the article dominates too much Suggestions: If there is enough information of the different owners who came to buy the mine, it would be great to learn more about each owners experience with the mine. In the “Future Development” section there is only a mention of the opposing side to mining (lawsuit against Patriot Coal Corporation)--maybe add those that are/were in favor of this

Neutral Content • No persuasion Suggestions: be careful of the words used “considerably lower national…” (Income Demographics) “significantly higher national…” (Income Demographics) “higher still…” (income demographics) “Many environmental problems…” (Environmental and Health Impacts) Instead: There are studies showing environmental problems are caused by... (here you can link the word “studies” to studies that have shown this to be the case)

Reliable Sources Many of the sources used are from website articles. The ones that are mainly scholarly articles are about the health impacts of the mining. Try to see if there is any scholarly work on this topic.

Other • Make sure to cite whenever facts are stated • If possible paraphrase the quotes • Remove the parenthesized numbers: (8), (10), etc. • A lot of repeat on: ownership of the mine and mine no longer producing

Hilda a (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]