User talk:Wd1996/sandbox

Hi, Wd1996!

After looking through the draft of your article, I still do not have a clear understanding of what the Stream Protection Rule is. I think it'd be best to at least briefly cover its meaning at least in the lead section so that readers who just want a general idea of the topic can do so by skimming the background section. Also, I feel as though the environmental justice section can not only be tied better to the Stream Protection Rule, but can also be expanded on. Overall, I think your topic is very interesting and timely to current events. Keep up the good work!

Espmuser (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that if the lead section included a sentence or two about environmental justice implications of the Stream Protection Rule then readers would have a better idea that the article is focusing on environmental justice. Additionally, I feel like adding some specific examples of how the Stream Protection Rule works in the Provisions section would help readers see exactly how the rule works. For the Environmental Justice section, I think it might be interesting to focus in and expand on some of the environmental injustices. Overall, I like the structure of the page as it gives readers an easy to follow timeline of the Stream Protection Rule, and I think the article does a good job of showing both sides of the argument. Looks good so far! Espmstudent (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Although you mention about the rule, I feel like you can go into further details about the rule. For example, you can try to discussing the policies that take part of the Stream Protection Rule. I also think adding another subtopic about environmental issues that is related to the rule can make your transition run more smoothly when you're talking about the environmental injustice part of the article. Maybe talking about how the rule has played an impact in the lives of the citizens to help make your article sound more clear? Happy editing ! 17calbrs (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)