User talk:Gino1017/sandbox

Links to articles I have been looking at for our topic: Access to Green Spaces (Municipal/Federal)

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?sid=bbfe95e1-6dbb-47ae-a8ec-71ece33dda02%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=S1618866716301182&db=edselp

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0169204616302432&site=eds-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0169204616301153&site=eds-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0033350613002862&site=eds-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S014362281530014X&site=eds-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0160412014001779&site=eds-live

Peer Review[edit]

I think you have a solid outline for proposed changes and additions to the existing article about Protected lands. A few things to think about: - In the "Relevancy" section, you could add information about Trump's 'Two-For-One" Executive order that will eliminate two existing regulation for every new regulation introduced, and how this might impact federally protected lands.

      - this is a great point! duly noted Snekkirino (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-In this same section, you could talk about Ryan Zinke, the new Secretary of the Interior under president Trump. For example, Zinke recently moved to overturn a federal ban on hunting with lead ammunition in National Parks. The department of the Interior also oversees the USGS, which does research on climate change.

      -another great point! Added the Zinke info Snekkirino (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Make sure to tie in the Environmental Justice aspects/impacts of current legislation and potential future legislation in the Trump Administration. Maybe touch on proximity of protected lands to communities of color and less affluent communities vs. whiter, more affluent communities?

Peer Review - Charlie[edit]

Positive feedback: I appreciate the direction you are going in so far especially considering how much there is to cover; first of all, I like that you're addressing questions of value, race, culture, and history, as the article is very dry as it addresses a lot of how the government manages the different areas at the different levels and in how big those spaces are. I also like that you're going to add more on John Muir since there isn't anything on him except in the picture. It's good your adding the racial aspect of John Muir, especially since his racism is so often overlooked, though it's very indicative of the racist nature of the environmental movement.

Areas of improvement: If possible, I would add a section of analysis on the colonial nature of grabbing, owning, and protecting land in the United States, and perspectives in how environment is perceived by leading environmentalists and how they've led to what policies are set in maintaining protected land. For example, how humans were not perceived as part of wilderness and how that's contributed to the genocide and targeting of Native communities.

Good job y'all! I look forward to the progress of your work :) Charlie Spence Defense (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review David Martinez[edit]

I think it is really cool that that you are discussing who is establishing the value of federally protected lands. From what I understand, early environmental movements did not take into consideration land rights of natives and sought to establish protected lands for a select group of people. Do modern conservation efforts prioritize land rights? In the U.S. this is particularily relevant to native american land rights and changing land value. Maybe also discuss access to protected lands for recreation? Minority groups are severly underrepresented in federally protected parks, etc. Good luck! Davidmartinez (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     - noted! I added a new section. Snekkirino (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-I think adding stuff like this is super important and it's actually where I want to take most of the sections within our article. Especially in terms of just other reviews, like the one left in our actual sandbox, there is a lot of literature existing on the history of protecting land with figures such as Muir and its roots in white elitism. My focus is trying to keep the content neutral and impartial.Gino1017 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter[edit]

I like where you're headed but please focus on two areas for improvment asap:

1) your outline doesn't feel coherent yet. are you trying to add EJ context to that existing page? Maybe start, for clarity's sake with a new page on National Parks and Environmental Justice?

2) citations...you have none.

finally it feels like there may be overlap, collaboration potential with this page being done in the class too, but your call! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jyescas/sandbox --EJustice (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - Garshaw[edit]

Good start. Needs more EJ dimensions and more organized scaffolding. This means adding in sections that you might not expand upon beyond a sentence or two, but leaving room for others in the wikipedia community to do so. I would focus on access to protected lands and threats to access, since this seems to be an area of disproportionate impact. Work on getting it into wiki format, including citation format. GAA8423 (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]