Talk:Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission

Untitled

Great job on the article, the timeline looks fantastic! My suggestions include explaining more on the remand, as well as "linking out" to pages like NRDC and FERC, so that the reader can learn more about the groups involved.

Excellent description and explanation as to why this case is significant.

Cjpepino (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I would recommend re-aligning either the Storm King Mountain info box or the United States Federal Civil Procedure Doctrines info box to the left so that all the boxes don't stack. There is guidance available at: Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial

Captcrunch1 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of the New York Court of Appeals general info box, you might want to insert a case box like the one started below specifically for the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. It is formatted to be inserted to your article, but needs some of the case history info populated.

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name	Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission
Argued	October 8 1965
Decided	December 29 1965
Citation(s)	354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Stanley Fuld,Joseph Edward Lumbard,Sterry Robinson Waterman,Leonard Page Moore,Henry Friendly,John Joseph Smith,Irving Kaufman,Paul Raymond Hays,Robert Palmer Anderson

Captcrunch1 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the timeline section of the page, it might be helpful to include the court in which the case was tried under each applicable year.

Captcrunch1 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That info box is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. Thank you both for your input!

Jtreetree (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

General comments by Stuartyeates

Please see general comments by User:Stuartyeates on articles generated by this class at Education Program talk:University of San Francisco/Environmental Law (Spring 2013)#Feedback_on_the_articles. Please respond there if you have any questions or comments. Dcoetzee 01:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

From Prof

Your page is coming along. I've made some edits to clean up some wording and added a link or two. I added an opening quotation in the Standing section where there was a closed quote that was unpaired - you may want to look into that. I cannot know if I put it in the right place or if it should be there at all. The language needs to be worked on.

Every statement of fact should be backed up with a reference. There are a number of statements without references.

The lead section should stand alone and be understandable to a general audience.

Delete the Dissenting Opinion section since it isnt' applicable.

Add years to the dates in the Remand section.

Aarf613 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tags and review notes

Hi all, I reviewed the cleanup tags at the top of the article. I edited the lead a little bit and I think the lead is looking great now in summarizing the impact of the case, but the other issues are still of concern:

• No other articles currently link to this article. You should try to find relevant related articles in which you can link to this article from an appropriate place. For example, if there is an article on public environmental groups, you could mention this case there.
• You've added many links to other articles but some parts like the judicial timeline could probably still use some.
• You note the case's influence in determining that public environmental groups can have standing, but it would be useful to highlight some specific cases (particularly high-profile cases) that explicitly invoke this precedent.

Some additional notes from me:

• The intro and infobox mention "Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission", but the title mentions "Consolidated Edison v. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference", and the article later mentions it as well. I've read the article but I'm still quite confused regarding the distinction between these cases, and which one this article is about (both?) Regardless you should consider a rename - titles containing colons, in a "title: subtitle" format like this, are highly unusual.
• You should avoid legal jargon and abbreviations like "cert. denied. Sub nom." - if you must use jargon write it out in full and link it to the corresponding articles, particularly if it's an important part of the description.

Hope this helps! Dcoetzee 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this helpful input!

I am just about to include relevant cases per your recommendation.

Jtreetree (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

More from Aarf613 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've linked the Storm King Mountain page and the David Sive page to yours. You should add a link to your page from the See Also sections on those pages. And link other relevant pages, i.e. Scenic Hudson (if it existed) etc., to your page. Don't hide your light under a bushel! Aarf613 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Added link to Federal Power Act and reference in the info box Captcrunch1 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)