Talk:Mountain Valley Pipeline

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

United States: West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

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): Rymisenar, Platowilliams, Kpmia305, Brownrs28608.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Dalton Tennant

The formatting could be redone and an opening summary of what it is would be good at the very top, it does not need to be as detailed as the first one you have now but just give a real short sentence wit what it is, where, and for wit less specific detail than the other paragraphs to give a genera idea. In the cause section the first sentence sounded like it should be reworked thing there was an "are" that should be has. Not many but a few typing errors or sentences that could be reworked. Great information and content!! 3/20/18

Peer Review by EJR

Things that work: good overall information.

The 'Efforts' section is good, needs a little proof reading but a solid section. This should be the last section.

The 'Activities' section is solid but should be renamed and located directly after the lead section or after the background section.

Issues: The titles of subsections are odd.

The lead section is a bit jumbled. It will be easier to read once the citations are fixed but I would also make sure this sections gives a concise whole picture outline of the project. I didn't even know where this pipeline was until the following section. because the living document nature of wikipedia I would mention "Currently the Mountain Valley Pipeline is in the preliminary phases of construction ." at the very beginning.

I am confused as to the sections 'Background' and 'Causes' they seem to touch on the same issues. I would focus on general background of pipelines, the region in question, and rise of natural gas popularity. Causes focusing more on public concern ect

I am under the impression you shouldn't be using direct quotation, if this is incorrect please disregard, with that said your citations need to be redone. There should only be numerical hyperlinks after the cited information, no (NAMEXXX)

"In order to push for the building of the MVP, the Forest Service lowered their standard for water quality, visual impacts, and destruction of the forest within the Jefferson National Forest Management Plan. There is an argument that due to this change, this would allow for other infrastructure project would take advantage of other forests and parks" Needs citation. RichardsonEJ (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From Logan King

Grammar and Spelling: The lead and background sections were well-written and did not have any grammatical errors. In the Causes section, I think you meant to put "by" after the word "impacted" in the first sentence. The second bullet of the first set of bullets has "water" as redundant in the sentence. The "water concerns" at the end of the sentence could be taken out so it is not said twice in the sentence. The last sentence of the next bullet, I think that "be able to" should be added after "would". There were no grammatical errors in the Efforts section, and it was well-written.

Bias and tone: The list of concerns in the Background section appears to be slightly biased against the pipeline because it is outlining all the concerns and problems. A shorter might be beneficial and just give examples of some issues instead of all of the possible issues. The beginning of the Causes section appeared a little biased against the pipeline, but it was really good that benefits of the pipeline were added at the end to balance it out. The Efforts section was biased and just gave the facts about some ways people are opposing the pipeline.

Resources: All sections except the Lead and the Activities sections were cited correctly. These two sections needed to cite through Wikipedia where just a number shows up where the citation is, not the title of the article. Also, the sources need to just be included in the Resources section, not in the Activities section itself. None of the sources or facts appear to be plagiarized and there is a citation for all facts and sources were used in the appropriate places.

General: In the Lead section, the last paragraph was kind of confusing and I did not know what eminent domain was, and was lost. It might be beneficial to explain a little more what the company is trying to accomplish when they met opposition. The lead was good for the most part though and did not have any other problems. There is not title for the resources section, and the Governance and Leadership sections are blank titles and need to be removed if no information is going to be placed there. Overall the article was well done and well-written. Kinglj1 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinglj1 (talk • contribs)

Comments From Bobby Bonhoff

The lead section and "background" subsection both read like press releases, also they could both use some streamlining. I would change them to state what the plan of the project is as well as the primary opposition against them. The subsections "Causes and efforts" are a little confusing, I feel like they could be combined under one category that could be called something like "criticisms", or maybe "opposition." The main body of the article needs to have more information about the Pipeline itself, the good news is that I think much of the information presented in the lead section/background can be used for this. Overall the article is almost finished, it just needs some reworking/rewording so that the information flows logically and does not present any biases. Bonhoffrm (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From BrightestTwilight

The title and lead section of the article is usually above the contents box and you don’t need the label for the lead section anymore, the lead section is just the section that appears after the title. Overall citations need to be reassessed. It may help to use the template for references. If you cannot remember how to insert it use google and a how-to will pop up. Lead section has more information than it needs in it. Some of the paragraphs look like they would just fit better in the background section. All sections need to be formatted with the appropriate heading style. All of the sections also come across a bit clumsy and jumbled with much information being presented in sections that don’t make sense for the information in question. I do not understand the activities section. It starts with background on the project, then talks about geographical background, moves onto government involvement, and ends with more corporate information. Don’t forget to delete the headings for governance and leadership if you don’t add information there. Good work including both arguments for and against the pipeline. Don’t let the list of formatting issues get to you, the information looks good, just the arrangement of the information needs tweaking. BrightestTwilight (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Connor Sprinkle

Lead Section In the first sentence of the lead section, it seems to be a run-on. The format of the sentence is awkward and I feel as if a period is needed somewhere to break it up. Also the "N" in "Numerous" in the third paragraph should not be capitalized.

Background There need to be a comma after revenue in the first sentence. Also after West Virginia in that sentence I feel as if a period is needed. Then change the start of the second sentence to "These are regions where."

Causes A comma is needed after Appalachian Trail in the first bullet point. Change "other infrastructure project" to "other infrastructure projects to". Also, I think at the end of the bullet points, if the argument is a full sentence there should be a period at the end. I could be wrong, but it is just my suggestion.

Efforts I feel like a period is more needed than a comma after "pipeline" in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Change the word "Stated" to "States" "United States Department of Transportation" in the third paragraph.

Activities A comma or period needs to be present after West Virginia in the first sentence. The second sentence is worded awkward and is confusing. (Underly?) I just think it could be formatted different or worded different to make it more simple to understand.

Overall, I saw no problem with plagiarizing. The format seemed to be fine and the article flowed well. The tone of the article was not bias at all and it did a nice job of just giving the facts. Also, you all did a nice job of citing your sources and your citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Sprinkle (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]