Talk:Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.

General

Nice start! The EPA link currently is not working, but minor. Cammauf1 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• fixed the EPA reference. Gbfalcone (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Article

Just wanted to say your article looks great and flows well. I haven't really found anything else for now but keep up the good work. It's a very interesting case.

[User:Anderskr|Anderskr]] (talk) 20:24 am, 4, May 2011 ( UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Article Changes

Your article is looking great. I added some acronyms to the appropriate spaces in the beginning. Also, when you are talking about national performance standards, you are not talking about NSPS are you? I just wanted to clarify that. Lastly, when talking about the other cases that led up to this one in the Background I would do numbering or bulleting. For example try this: Three pre- Entergy Supreme Court decisions offer historical guidance into the possible crafting of the CBA canon. Each of them address the priority of environmental health and safety concerns with the appropriate level of costs- benefit analysis.

1. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill: The Court interpreted section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as discontinuing the construction of the Tellico Dam after the project was more than 80 percent complete and had spent over $50 million in order to save an unknown species known as the snail darter.
2. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan: The Court ruled etc.........
3. etc.......

To me it helps the reader follow along more easily. Ps. Thank you for the advice on ours. I added some changes regarding the acronyms and did some other edits you suggested. I am not sure about going into the organic industry though, that is sort of straying from the case I think but I will talk this over with my partner and see what he thinks. We am trying to make this as concise as possible. Have a good day. :) Anderskr (talk) 11:39am, 2, May 2011 ( UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Article Feedback

This article is in progress and will have our edits completed by May 10th. Please post advice and edits to this discussion / talk page to help us improve it. Thanks! Gbfalcone (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Related articles

Once your main article is developed, you may want to add a summary paragraph about the case to Entergy and Riverkeeper. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! We will be working on it this week and bring it to main space Tuesday April 26th evening. Will incorporate Summary and better organize as we develop, Thanks. Gbfalcone (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK instructions

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code if you created a new article:

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

or this code if you expanded it

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=expanded | author= }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Here are my suggestions regarding the article as it now stands:

What is the "CBA canon"? Please elaborate.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations): "Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." In my opinion, you have too many abbreviations in the article, and should consider writing out the abbreviated terms in full.

Please consider renaming the section called "Facts of the case or Arguments". This title is ambivalent, and should be one or the other. Review articles about other Supreme Court cases to see if there is an established precedent on Wikipedia.

Rewrite this sentence to reflect the neutral point of view: "Over the past four decades Riverkeeper has been successful as the public's watchdog in bringing hundreds of pollution violations to justice and protecting drinking water for local communities." Though I may personally agree with this sentence, it does not seem neutral as written.

This terminology if from their own website. I believe it describes their public role and quality of effort in relation to the community (not my opinion). Cammauf1 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Change various section headings such as "Adverse Environmental Impact" to "Adverse environmental impact". The manual of style says that only the first word of a title or section name should be capitalized, except for proper names. Check the whole article for this issue.

Link to the biographical article for the first mention of each Supreme Court justice in the text of the article. The links in the infobox are fine, but links should also be in the main body. I think that Sotomayor's first name should be added, as she was not on the Supreme Court at that time.

The "Future Implications" section seems a bit weak, and I would ascribe various opinions about the significance of the case to expert sources in the body of the article. Reference 11 has a typographical error.

More to come . . . Cullen328 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great job on the article. Here's some suggestions for you. Avoid using quotes. For example: cooling water intake structure does not need quotes. Seems like you can combine the adverse impact section and main issue sections into the case subheading section so it's not broken up. This seems like the crux of the case so maybe you can integrate it into why petitioner is suing. The EPA rule making section could be moved up to the background section along with prior case and statue and then bold the headings: Background, This Case, and Decision. Otherwise this looks great with lots of substance. Nice job! Brandon Liddell (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

I did some more edits but one thing I was wondering, are you planning on keeping the word cost-benefit analysis capitalized throughout because there seems to be some inconsistency in the paper. I would suggest not capitalizing it unless it is the start of a sentence. Cheers. Anderskr (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2011 ( UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)