User talk:Carriesu

Carriesu, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Carriesu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 13:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Carriesu, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review - environmental policy in China

Lead: You didn’t change anything here so not so much to tell about it. Since you’re adding some relevant and interesting stuff, you may consider adding something in the lead, that shortly says something about water, since that is what you’re mainly dealing with. Clear structure: I suppose you’re going to place your part under the ‘Current Issues’. The additions you suggest don’t have a different title so far, so I think you are going to place it under the water resources section, and then add the other part as a new section. So far I think the sections are organized well, but just make sure you find a suitable title, since this entire piece is a bit too long to not have it separated by a different section.

Balancing act: Since you are expanding the section on water massively, you should question yourself whether this water section should be indeed this long in comparison to the rest of the total article. I suppose that water issues are not necessarily a bigger concern than air issues, but considering the amount of content on both topics, water now seems more important. Take that in mind. However, I think you are doing a good job with covering the right amount of content with a source. Regarding balancing, I think you could add a little more on other perspectives. Do you have any environmental organisations or even international organisations who have something to say about the way that the environmental policy of water pollution is organised? I think you could make it more interesting to add multiple perspectives.

Neutral content: I couldn’t detect any signs of non-neutrality. Since this is a sensitive topic, I think you are doing a good job in just describing the difficulties rather than giving their sensitive, background. Good job, keep it up.

Reliable sources: You are using a lot of sources to support your text, that’s very good. Nevertheless, as the professor mentioned a couple of times before, Wikipedia is not a fan of sources which are coming from the governments itself. For some reason it won’t let me open your sources, but the way how you referenced them, I think that a few of them are actually government sources, so be aware of that, as Wikipedia does not considers them neutral. I know it is difficult to find stuff on policies on non-governmental websites, but just be aware of it. Down here I have copied some of your sentences in what I think there are some grammar errors. It is just to help you out to make it a little more readable. Overall I think you are doing a good job in covering policies and the way you describe them is very reliable. I hope this was helpful!

Suggested improvements: According to the report Only less than half of water meets the safe drinking water standards in China -> What report are you talking about? There is no reference to a report (I mean with like an name in the text). Also, Only should be with a small letter. Besides political oppositions between regions, the current government structure for controlling water pollution is a barrier[6]. -> This sentence is confusing, I don’t really get what you are trying to say here. Take a second look at the words you use. Are you saying that the oppositions between regions is a good thing, but still the current government structure is not helping? That is what it says now. which results in its heavy dependence on local environmental protection bureau (EPB). -> It either has to be: on THE local environmental protection bureau, or on local environmental protection bureauS. (plural or singular, now it is a mixture). The problem is that local EPBs do not only get controlled by higher EPB but also local governments whose performance is assessed mainly by economic development[7]. -> the grammar of this sentence is incorrect. I think you forgot the word “by”, between “also” and “local”. So the local governments have actual more liberal policies on companies that producing water pollution -> never start a sentence with “So”. Additionally, the majority of income of EPBs comes from pollution instead of pollution fine, which makes it difficult for the ministry manages local EPBs. [8] -> this sentence is not correct. Check the second part, I think this is what you mean: ‘the ministry THAT manages local EPBs”. Marijnekramer (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --Dcebbie (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons deletion

Just edit that page on Commons to add {{SDG7}} - Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)