User talk:Jlafrentz1/sandbox

Peer Review Response from Yoon-Jean Kim

Thank you for your reviews! I will definitely look into incorporating information on how the Trump administration will affect the recommendations and funding for addressing nitrates in groundwater. I haven't actually started my subtopic on funding for addressing nitrates in groundwater but I will also take into consideration whether there has been a misallocation of funds! I will also reconsider the need to even have a separate subtopic for the funding in the first place. Personally, I thought it would be nice to separate the recommendations for addressing the issue and the funding required to realize these recommendations or to implement any new improvements but I do understand where you're coming from! Yoonjeansjeans (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response from Steffan Diedering

Thank y'all for your reviews. I think that my section was full of information that needs to be better cited, and i appreciate the notice. I think it is true that the wording i used would be considered plagiarism because its not as not that different. Finally thank you for your edits and reviews. Shteffy409 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response from Jessica La Frentz

Thank you for your reviews, I appreciate the responses you gave and have taken note of them. On the notes for paraphrasing, rather than quoting, I'd like to leave a note for you: when the quote is from a notable source in the field, a quotation is more credible than paraphrasing, even when you cite your material.

Jlafrentz1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response from Hilda Perez

Hello Evan, Sophia, and Rebecca,

I want to thank you all for the peer-review of our article! You all gave great constructive feedback that we have and will take note of.

I wanted to acknowledge your feedback in the demographics section. I noticed that the common suggestions were to synthesize the census data, demonstrate how this information is related to the topic, and why this information is important. I did fail to mention and/or relate this information to our overall topic. What I plan to do is give a brief explanation of why demographics are important and how they can be useful to provide a quantitative analysis of water contamination to produce a case of environmental injustice (if the information is demonstrating that—for instance, if a particular group is highly concentrated in an area where nitrates are particularly high). We need to add a section of wells that have been impacted by nitrates. I commented towards the end of the demographics section that I would be providing this information in that section. However, I think it would be better fitting as its own section instead of it being in the demographics section.

As far as synthesizing the information, I cannot think of a way to do this (if any suggestions, please let me know). I do think it is important to have this data because it allows people to see the components that make up the particular counties and people can make their own judgments of what this means. In addition, as mentioned above, by adding why all this data is important, will help people in understanding why this information was provided for them.

Lastly, I will go ahead and fix the part of the sources that I simply put URL’s instead of the proper citation.

Thank you again for your feedback!

Hilda a (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit from Evan Yoshimoto:

Wow! What an incredible article- thank you all so much for putting this together on a topic as important as this. I’m sure this will shed light to the injustice in the Central Valley that deserves to be heard.

The lead section you put together is informative, not too detailed, and touches on the information that is going to be presented in the following sections very well. The sections are structured in a way that makes sense, but I might consider absorbing the Funding Required for Addressing Nitrates in Groundwater into the Recommendations for Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater section, as they seem to be apart of the same sup-topic you are trying to approach.

There’s a large amount of information Large Contributors of Nitrates in Agriculture that need citations that would add to the credibility of the wiki page. For example, the sentence “Fertilizer runoffs contributes roughly 90% of all nitrate inputs to the alluvial groundwater system” would be better presented if it was cited from a credible source. I’m excited to read the Health Impacts of Nitrates to your page in the future, as I believe they are an important thing too talk about, especially for rooting this article in exposing environmental injustice. The Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater section was very thorough and informative- you all did a very good job in presenting this information from a neutral standpoint.

My last recommendation is that there are a lot of the sources are in the form of URL, is there any way for you all to edit them to make them reflect the title or article of the report you are getting them from. Besides that, all of your sources seem relievable and your through citation throughout the page made for a credible read.

Overall, the article was balanced, neutral, had reliable resources, and inspired me to find more credible data for my groups Wiki Page on Native American Land Disputes, as they are a good way of expressing non-neutral information. Great work, and I am excited to see the continuation of this article in the future.

Peer Edit from Sophia Weltman Notes on lead:

Looks like you all have put a lot of hard work into this page. The lead paragraph is extremely well done. The concluding sentence of your first paragraph in the lead section may come off as biased and does not have a citation. I think it is generally a good idea to stray from saying “is important” in a Wiki article as this phrase signifies the type of value judgement that is not welcomed by Wiki.

Also, in the first and second sentence of second paragraph of the lead, “bloods” should be “blood’s” (I think I was able to successfully edit this typo myself). Also the addition of a transition sentence between the description of the effects of nitrates in the blood and the introduction of CWC would make the second paragraph of the lead flow better.

Notes on San Joaquin Valley:

Can you put what is in quotations into your own words? Try to avoid quotations. This does not seem like a necessary time to quote.

Census Data:

Census looks good. It does comprise a large chunk of your article. Do you think it is necessary? I think it is very interesting but maybe consider synthesizing it. Why should your reader care about these figures? How are they directly related to exposure to nitrates.

Large Contributors of Nitrates in Agriculture:

This section needs citations. Even though the information is very interesting and relevant, not a single sentence is cited. Again, in the Large Dairy Herds section I do not think the information you have quoted needs to be quoted. This is something you can put in your own words.

Are there any other possible solutions and alternatives? I think there must be more things to explore here that could be very interesting.

Notes on Addressing Nitrate in Growndwater:

This section is really solid.

Overall great job. Maybe think about directly addressing how the current administration’s policy will affect this case on injustice. Is federal regulation or state policy more relevant? What will Trump’s presidency mean for nitrate levels in central valley groudwater? Thank you all for all the hard work you clearly put into this page!

Peer review from Rebecca Farhi:'

Good job on getting ahead! It looks like you have put a lot of work into your article so far! Overall, this is starting to look like a great article so I only have a few comments and recommendations:

- The second paragraph in the lead feels a bit disorganized. It may not even be necessary if you can sum it all up into one sentence and then add it to the end the first paragraph. - The title of the section currently called "Large Contributors of Nitrates in Agriculture" seems a little long and redundant. Maybe you can shorten it. - When you begin adding to the "Funding Required for Addressing Nitrates in Groundwater" section, I recommend considering if any funds have been misallocated. - Maybe it would make sense to talk about all of the chemical pollutants in the area's water, not only nitrates? Or maybe just touch on the other ones and their sources briefly. (Does nitrate have any other sources other than agriculture?) This would make your point more broad and effective. Consider evaluating how agriculture came to be and remained the dominant occupation of this area. - Ponder and discuss the "Trumpliness" of the topic, if possible. - You have a lot of information/data on the demographics of these counties but you need to synthesis the meaning of this information at the beginning, end, or in between the section and tell us how it relates to the topic and why it is important. This section could be used as support for an environmental justice aspect section? - Is it possible to get and include the demographics for the entire central valley as a whole at the end? - It looks like you are planning to add a section about "Health Impacts of Nitrates". I believe this is important to have and maybe you could also talk about its connection to health care and the county residents' lack of access to it. - Avoid using quotes - paraphrase instead.

Keep up the good work! This is an essential environmental justice topic that my group may even need to refer to in our research about environmental injustices against Native Americans.

Rebfarhi (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Posted February 24, 2017 in Sanbox: My group plans to create a page called Nitrates and Water Contamination in the Central Valley, which will show how nitrates in water contamination disproportionately affect people of color in the Central Valley of California. Nitrate comes from runoff of fertilizers, which are heavily used in agriculture, and can cause severe health effects. The demographics of the Central Valley is largely low-income and people of color who depend heavily on farming and typically have a water well on their property, making nitrate-contaminated water in the Central Valley an environmental justice issue.

Bibliography:

Comments from Garrison

• Overall, great job so far! The article is well structured and thorough.

• You’ve done a good job adding links to other articles, but make sure to also add links in other articles that direct to this page in order to increase the number of views.

• Are there any additional photos, graphics, or maps you could use as visual aids in this article? Such as the California Water Board’s map showing areas that are out of compliance.

• Do all of the people living in the counties listed live in the valley? I’m not sure, but it’s possible that part of the county is in the valley and part is not.

• Do another read through to copy edit. There are a few small grammatical mistakes throughout.

• There is an empty “notes and references” section at the end of the article that you may want to remove?

• Great job with references!

• Keep up the great work! California1990 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Original synthesis

I have added an original synthesis tag to the article. In fact, it is not clear that "Nitrates and water contamination" is a problem in the Central Valley. The lead argues as follows:

1. The Central Valley has a lot of fields
2. Nitrogen fertilizers used in these fields can leach into water systems
3. Nitrates in the water are bad.

All three claims may be true, but they don't necessarily join together. We would need a reliable source explicitly saying that there is a problem. The only problem I can see here is that a couple of counties have some wells that are non-compliant. StAnselm (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Back to sandbox

I don't believe that this is ready for mainspace yet. Apart from the "original synthesis" issues that Anselm pointed out, the article just isn't structured right. It doesn't have a lead section, it doesn't have the normal flow of an article. I also strongly suspect that the right place for this is in Central Valley (California)#Environment. The page doesn't have information on groundwater contamination at all. And it's far more likely to be seen on that page, rather than being buried here. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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): Yoonjeansjeans.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)