Talk:RECLAIM Act

Untitled

Bibliography: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1731 https://halrogers.house.gov/press-releases?ID=BFABA136-F679-406F-A27E-57D365E0A46A http://www.powerplusplan.org/reclaim-act/ http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/327179-reclaim-act-represents-massive-environmental-and http://appvoices.org/tag/reclaim-act/ Farmergb (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/339574-lobbying-fight-erupts-over-coal-country-bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batchelorec (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.worc.org/reclaim-act-advocates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batchelorec (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/09/poll-shows-overwhelming-support-reclaim-act-and-economic-diversification-coal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batchelorec (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://ieefa.org/strong-public-support-reclaim-act-eastern-kentucky/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batchelorec (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylorjl8, Farmergb, Batchelorec.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from S.K. Carmichael

coming soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmichaelsk (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Forrest Lee

This article is organized well for how short it is. In my opinion, only having three sections in addition to the lead statement might not cover the topic well enough to allow the reader a full understanding of your topic. Grammar and sentence structure is good for the most part but there are several small errors I noticed. Watch your use of "affected" vs "effected", in the background section it says "coal is losing its meaning", what does this mean? The third to last sentence in the Background section is not a complete sentence, and there is another sentence in the reactions section that reads "support of the bill." which is not a complete sentence. Under the provisions section, "retirements" is used instead of "requirements". General editing can easily fix most of these problems, and once they are fixed your information will be very encyclopedic. In order to avoid bias, the first sentence of the background section should be reworded, as well as several other sentences that appear to be taking pity on the communities that have been hurt by coal mining repercussions. Your use of sources is great and paraphrasing was avoided even when talking about the sections of the bills. Overall, a well done article that needs minor editing to make it presentable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jforrestlee (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Robert Lee Davis III

While it is short, it is very well written. At the beginning instead of RECLAIM ACT just title it introduction or no title since we already know what the title of the wikipedia article is. Good use of citations/sources and grammar seems appropriate. Though, I will note that when you use the footnotes instead of noting a sentence with 5 separate sources, you can instead just use one source. A good example of this error can be seen here: The bill has generated support from a broad coalition of interests groups, such as Appalachian grassroots organizations, local officials, religious organizations, and environmental groups. (source)(source)(source).In addition the tone of the wikipedia is consistent throughout the document and seems appropriate for the article.

Comments from Daniel Jones

The intro is very well written with the information being accurate and concise but I would change the title to something simple such as “Introduction” since the webpage is about the RECLAIM ACT you do not need to state it again. The overall wording and flow to this article is good and for the most part unbiased. In the Background section the first sentence is a little confusing and could use some elaboration on what “coal losing its meaning” means in this instance. In the Provisions section the word retirements was accidentally used instead of requirements, but that is a minor fix. Overall this is article seems wiki ready with a few minor tweaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesdh123 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jessica Rogers

I did not see any spelling errors however there are some grammatical and punctuation errors. For example, sentence three under "background" section has unnecessary commas. The content of the article lacks sources in the "provisions" section entirely after using one reference for the first sentence. The tone and style of the article are unbiased and informative, there appears to be no misleading statements.

comments by Scott Johnston

This draft is well put together and seems to be focused on the right things. I did not find any grammatical, spelling, or content errors. I was not able to access your reference (5) though. I also think that you need to cite things in your second paragraph. I did not find it to be bias by any means but would be careful of unintentional plagiarism because there is a lot of information that could use citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott1145 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bryson Honeycutt

I think that the introduction is a good start, but it falls apart toward the end simply because of lack of content. I feel that it needs to be longer and outline each topic more thoroughly. In The "Background" section, coal is portrayed as losing its "meaning". I would use "weight" within communities and economy's because meaning is a very broad word that can be interpreted many ways. Next, in the third section entitled "Provisions" there are some spelling and sentence structure issues. In the fourth sentence "retirements" are used in place of requirements. There are many run-on sentences throughout this section particularly, but in the entire page as well. A few small grammatical and structural changes and the page will convey your ideas much better. I think that this page was one of the hardest to refrain from plagiarism or paraphrasing because it reviewed so many legal documents that sometimes are nearly impossible to explain/convey ideas without reusing some terminology. However, this group has successfully done it. Everything looks and sounds great. I couldn't find any problems with the sourced used or how they were used. Bryson H (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Megan Poole

Good Wiki article, it was very clear and to the point. It wasn't too long and I didn't lose interest considering the topic.

There were minor grammatical errors.

In the Background section when you talked about coal losing it's meaning it had a little awkward phrasing. I recommend you change it to "since coal began to lose its meaning".

In the Provisions section there weren't many errors I saw and you kept a good neutral tone. Maybe change "Indian Tribes" to "Native American tribes"? Not entirely sure about that though.

Other than that everything looked good! Maybe add a little more content in each section, if possible.

Your reference page looked good too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganpoole1212 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]