Wikipedia

Talk:Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Comments

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, for the most part this looks like really great work so far. I'm very happy with the extent of the prose, the neutral tone, and the copious use of good references. I had a few comments, however:

  • The Settlements section contains extensive copyright problems, and has been removed. See below.
    • The entire text of the "San Bernardino County Settlement" section was copied directly from this page. See duplication detector report. This is never acceptable and such text will be removed immediately. Article text must be written in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copy paste. Depending on university policies, students may also face academic penalties for this kind of copying. Please be more careful in the future.
    • The Attorney General Settlements summaries are either copied directly or closely paraphrased from the original settlement documents. I don't know for sure if court settlements are in the public domain in California or not, but even if they are in the public domain, I think this level of detail is excessive for an encyclopedia article on climate change litigation and CEQA in general.
    • Additionally, the settlements section should contain some kind of overall summary of the settlements, for readers who aren't interested in all the individual cases.
  • I added a link to a section in another article which describes California's judicial system in more detail, and to Environmental impact statement for more on EIRs.
  • By convention, words in section titles should begin with a lowercase letter, except for the first word and words that are normally capitalized like "California".
  • By convention, footnotes should go after punctuation like periods rather than before it.
  • In some places parentheses are overused - if you're using parentheses inside parentheses, or using multiple parenthesized phrases in a row, you have too many. I edited some of these.
  • Links:
  • Remember to include blank lines between paragraphs. Otherwise the text will flow together into one big paragraph. I fixed this in the "Challenges to Legislation" section.
  • Don't use {{Ibid}} - that doesn't do what you think it does. Instead, you should be using the syntax described at Help:Footnotes#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote to create multiple references to the same footnote.
  • The use of the "cite web" template in the first half is correct, but in the second half is incorrect. To make it show up correctly, there must be a pipe character "|" after "cite web". Additionally, it is a bad idea to include just the URL, because the resource might be taken down or move to a new location. You should also include, at a minimum, the title of the website, and if possible also the author, work, and access date.
  • "Implications for CEQA Practice" section has no footnotes yet.

I hope this helps! I know this is a lot of stuff, so please let me know if anything is unclear. The most important thing is just to make sure that content is written in your own words, and to never copy-paste from websites or other documents. Dcoetzee 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

SSoqo I was hoping to review the "AG Settlement" and "Criticisms" sections tonight, but it looks like they've been removed. Let me know if you need any help revising your sections or if you want to chat. I've made a couple revisions to the "Challenges to Legislation" section. Thanks for putting the page up! (Leyoon (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC))Reply


One more comment - Do you know what happen to the "notes" I wrote for my sections? I think I had a couple in the "CEQA Statue Background" and "Challenges to CEQA Document" sections...I think the note in the "Implications" section got embedded in the text. Any idea how to fix that? Also, I'll work on making my references consistent, as requested by Derrick. (Leyoon (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC))Reply

Thank you for the revision Derrick, the items in the 'Settlement' sections were my input and I did copy them directly from the MOU's signed by these parties as these were the exact agreements that they made - and we agree with you that it was too extensive for a Wiki page! I will revise them and get them edited by my partner Leyoon before we re-post.

Leyoon I will send these sections to you to review - I've removed the criticisms page following your review and the AG settlement page was removed due to copyright issues! Do you prefer that I just add them to our 'work in progress' page for you to review or send them to you first? Regarding your notes, I think these were all added in parenthesis in the relevant sections - let me have a re-check!Ssoqo (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Edits

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Howdy-

I've made all the references consistent, added citations to the "Implications" section, moved the reference number to outside the period, changed headings to be in "sentence text", and added a "notes" section. I think all my sections have been revised in response to Derrick's comments. Let me know once you've finished revising your sections and I can review the text.

Thanks! (Leyoon (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC))Reply

Amendments Incorporated

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Leyoon, I've incorporated the 'AG Settlements' and 'Criticisms' sections. With reference to the San Diego Settlement - there were only 4 main items, the other 3 did not seem to be significant i.e. they were more administrative than technical (dispute resolution, AG agreeing to not challenge the EIR and compliance with CEQA) - what do you think? Do you have any more ideas for additions/edits to our page? Ssoqo (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

History merge

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey guys, I'm really excited to see your article in the main encyclopedia space! Just letting you know I did a history merge between this version and your original sandbox version. This is essential to preserve the history, both for legal reasons (so we know who wrote what) and so we can review the process of how you developed your article. In the future please use the "Move" function located under the arrow in the upper-right hand corner to ensure the history is preserved. I also restored this talk page, which I feel is important for tracking the feedback you've received on your article, and moved it here. Please let me know if you have any concerns about this. Thanks! Dcoetzee 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Dcoetzee Ssoqo (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Multiple references to same document

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi guys, just wanted to let you know a couple things about citing the same document multiple times:

  • If you have two or three sentences in a row all based on the same source, it's okay to just cite it once at the end instead of repeatedly.
  • If you do cite the same document in multiple places, you should use the multiple citation syntax, which I've demonstrated in this edit. Try it out and let me know here if you have any trouble!

Thanks! Dcoetzee 22:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dcoetzee, I tried using the multiple citation syntax and it only displays the first original citation. Should I add something else to the next original citation so that the following same citations will refer to only that citation instead of the first original citation? Sorry if my question is unclear, I also have it on my sandbox. Thanks Ssoqo (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

General Comments

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great job with the article! I have two general comments. While it may be tedious, you may want to go through and hyperlink to words and phrases that have articles about them on Wikipedia. BAAQMD is one example. Also, I'm not sure how you defined major settlements reached by the AG's office because there are a few others that you might consider adding to your table. --Nwatmore (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Modified explanatory footnotes to use ref groups

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article had a few explanatory footnotes listed in a separate section from the citations. I only just now learned that there is an advanced <ref> syntax that facilitates separation of citations and explanatory notes as desired, listed at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Explanatory_notes under option D. I modified the article to use this, so that now it has hyperlinks between explanatory notes and their place of usage, and the text of the explanatory note is embedded in the wikitext in the location in which it is referenced. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Dcoetzee 19:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_litigation_and_the_California_Environmental_Quality_Act&oldid=1205309360"