User talk:Freyachun/sandbox

Lead section draft is very strong. It is clear and concise and I feel as though I have a good sense of the article after I read it. It could benefit from a bit more information, but I see that you have already noted that you will be adding.

The Clean Air Act portion could benefit from having specific sources. It is unclear where the information came from and what sources are correlated with each statement. You should get some sources in there as soon as possible to prevent plagiarism.

Your link to the Trump administration and those potential implications were very strong. I also admired your conclusions regarding the link to environmental injustice.

I think it would be most beneficial to focus on cases and data from the U.S., rather than expanding out to London and Beijing. I think that there is so much to cover in the U.S. alone, that spreading out to other countries would just dilute the article.

There is a great flow and balance from one topic to the next. Overall you have a great article here! Sierrawesthem (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

General/Grammar:

• I noticed that there are no citations yet in the article, but there seems to be a fair amount of statistics and claims. It might be helpful to start citing as you write so you don't have to go back and cite sentence by sentence.
• Missing "of" in "a series pollutant-related deaths" (The Clean Air Act, sentence 2)
• "In consistent" (Trump and the Clean Water Act, sentence 3)
• Avoid contractions
• Encyclopedic tone: some sentences could benefit from rewording so that they sound more "encyclopedic" and objective. For example, the phase "that's the first step for solving the inequalities" (Water Infrastructure and Environmental Disparities) and maybe "it's still hard to determine what consequences..." (Trump and the Clean Water Act). Also, I think changing "Mr. Trump" to "President Trump" or even "Donald Trump" might help the info sound more encyclopedic.

I think the draft of your lead section is very straightforward and sets up the topic well; it's just missing the summary of the policies (which is in progress).

The Clean Air Act: After reading the "Clean Air Act and Minority Health" section, I'm not sure if there is a strong argument about specifically minority health in this part. From just the info in this section, the act reduced pollution and improved public health, but there is not much to distinguish between the effects on non-minority and minority populations.

The Clean Water Act: This section is a little bit confusing for me to follow, because it jumps from talking about the efficiency/success of the CWA over the years to the disparities in water access for minority communities, but I have a hard time finding the connection.

Superfund and CERCLA: In this subtopic, I can clearly make the connection between the policy (CERCLA), the effect (Superfund sites), the disproportionate impact on minorities, and the impact of budget cuts. My only suggestion is that the sections could use more elaboration since they're a little short, and again, a lot of citations are needed.

--Mliou (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

Grammar: first sentence: Health implications of environmental policy (refers)

The lead section is nice and clear. It gave out a clear definition of what the Health implications of environmental policy are. The WHO data is a brilliant touch to arouse people’s attention. But, the next sentence needs some clarification. It is not clear that what kind of significant role that the environmental policy played. I think it will be more persuasive if you can add some brief examples to it.

For the CAA section, I think the explanation of CAA and its impact on the large scale may add to the importance of this act.

For the CWA section, we may need some data and examples to tell the reader the influence of the CWA.

After all, this first draft gave out a clear framework of your topic. Filling the knowledge gaps and it will be a great article. Nice work!

feedback from Prof. Gelobter

this topic or the infant mortality and environment are both appropriate as long as the majority (80+%) is about EJ

So page title could be:

Infant Morality and Environmental Justice Health Impacts of Environmental Policy scaffolding with the bulk of your work on the EJ dimension

With your present outline (using environmental statutes for example) focus strongly on the EJ studies linking those policies to health outcomes --2607:F140:6000:F:6CEA:4F67:B065:9EA5 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)