Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:45, 15 March 2017

Peer Review

Are these sections being added to the article that already exists? And will the original lead section be changed or is this new information that is being added? I can't really tell, but seems to me that the general pig farming information is necessary to keep, in addition to the essential info you all have written about! Throughout the article there a few grammar and wording issues-- I know it is a rough draft so another couple of read-throughs will likely fix them. I would pay particular attention to run-ons, like the first sentence in the EJ section. The lead section would be more effective if it were broad, included more links to related pages and fewer specific citations (maybe move these to more relevant sections). I would also look a little more critically at whether it is neutral or not; some readers may interpret parts as biased. The policy section is well written and effective. Can you link to other articles that go into more depth about such policies? The section on Trump Administration Implications appears long, is there a possibility of cutting it down to key points? Also, the first sentence is unclear: "Scott Pruitt, the new EPA secretary has undermined the past work of his predecessor Drew Edmonson." Edmonson was the Oklahoma attorney general before Pruitt, he did not oversee the EPA like Pruitt is now. The second to last paragraph about a solution is a great idea, but I wonder if it is appropriate in a wiki article? The final section on waste in water has great details, but is lacking citations! There is also some overlap between this section, the lead, and the EJ section. SemiTalia (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'm also unclear how this will be incorporated into the existing pig farming wiki page? Do you plan on merging the two? I think the existing wiki page provides necessary information about the basic underpinnings of pig farming, so your contribution might be more appropriate as a subsection (for example, subsections for "environmental hazards" "history of pig farming" or"disproportionate effects of farming pollution on minority communities. Even so, I'd be wary of pushback because you're going to be taking this article in a very different direction with such heavy emphasis on EJ. The existing wiki page only touches upon negative aspects of pig farming, mostly dealing with detrimental health impacts on the pigs themselves and you'll be adding many paragaphs about EJ. If I were looking up pig-farming for basic information, I'd probably feel this article was not neutral because of the imbalance of information being presented. I would expect some pushback from other wiki editors after publishing.

Source-wise, we are supposed to stay away from citing primary articles in that it presents a singular finding of the researcher, not a consensus view in the field. (I saw a few primary articles in your sources section.)

Wikibeanie (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

same comments as others, wondering how you will merge the two pages or if you will create a new one? the pig farming wiki and yours are talking about two different things and yours has the EJ portion. But i think there's a way to edit the pig farming wiki and yours to make everything flow and cohesive.Gqueen123 (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter

All quite good...love the quantity of citations.

Are you coordinating with: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:HELI/sandbox

--EJustice (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)