User talk:Spence Defense/sandbox

Testing the talk page out. Spence Defense (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Charlie

Peer Review: Great job using headers & sub-headers for organization, also there is a lot of content and sources, which is fantastic. Under the “Green Jobs and Workforce Education” section, an organization called AED is mentioned but there is no other mention of them or source cited – what is AED? In the Trump Administration section, some of the sentences would benefit from rewording for clarity. In the first sentence, for instance I believe it should read: “At this point in the Trump administration it is too early to tell for certain the extent of growth or decline in the green job sector.” (Note that items in bold were changes I made). It would also be nice to read more about the environmental justice aspects – can you flesh out the Racial Landscapes section? Overall, great article! Mcnelson510 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! We def want to focus our energies on fleshing out the racial dimensions of green jobs, specifically what areas/demographics are projected to experience the most job growth. We also need to clean everything up to make it read easier. Will work on it thnx. Davidmartinez (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review:

Hi Green Jobs group! First I’d like to say that your topic is so relevant to this day and age. We are lucky enough to witness a century in time in which a “green-collared” category has emerged, and documenting the history as well as the implementation of this emergence is very important. Your article already looks very well developed and organized - I only have a couple of pointers about the headers of your contents and small detail-change suggestions.

For your introduction, I think you should add a little more than the simple description of what green jobs are. For example, you could something like, “the emergence of green jobs is relatively recent and has been on the increase for *however many* years,” after the citation from the United Nations Environment Program.

Secondly, what exactly are net jobs? After reading the section titled “net jobs,” I’m still extremely unclear as to what net jobs mean and why they deserve a whole section to themselves. Perhaps you could combine half of this information into the introduction, or spread it out into different sections so the article could have a better flow.

My last pointer would be to spread your structure out in order to give the article a better flow, and in order to navigate the page with more easy. For example, “Green Jobs Net Growth/Shrinking under Trump Administration” could be entitled “Impacts of Trump Administration” instead, and have two different sections: one on growth, one on shrinking. Other than that, the rest of this article looks great and I can’t wait to see the finished result. Good luck! Ilonamantachian (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Ilona Mantachian, Saturday March 11th, 9:13PM

Thanks for your pointers! We will def be referring to your suggestions when we begin organizing our page :) Davidmartinez (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - Garshaw

Great article so far! The content and scaffolding is comprehensive! I think focusing on the racial and socioeconomic implications of this new labor market is a great idea. I'm just a bit confused about the placement/context of the Bureau of Labor Statistics section; is that an initiative? Doesn't seem like there is a lot of context for that heading.

Like we talked about, if you need more sources, Prof. can recommend you some and there are academic journals that specifically address labor markets. Keep up the good work! GAA8423 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)