Talk:RESTORE Act

Hollis_Turner_U3PR

Summary

The article explains the RESTORE Act and the context in which it was created. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, the RESTORE Act was established to allocate the money collected through the Clean Water Act to restorative actions/funds.

Major points

The article does a good job of providing context for the RESTORE Act and explaining its significance. The writing is appropriate for Wikipedia and the article is clear and understandable for the broad audience. Because the author attempts to create an article that is self contained and explores all aspects of the subject, I feel as if a little more thorough explanation of the connection between the sections would be beneficial. I think this can be done simply by clarifying the information in the "The Bill" section. My understanding is that the RESTORE Act establishes where money collected from the Federal Water Pollution Act (or Clean Water Act)is allocated. "80 percent..." goes to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and 20 percent goes to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund should be outlined in the beginning of the section before breaking those percentages down further. When I initially read the article I didn't understand the connection between the Bill and the oil spill incident because the author referred to the Clean Water Act as the Federal Water Pollution Act and didn't mention that they are the same thing. I think either using the same name twice or explaining they are the same thing will clarify the connection. The author does a really good job of connecting the article to other articles but might benefit from an External Links section to connect the article to outside sources, as I'm sure there is an abundance of literature on the topic.

Minor points

The structure of the article makes sense, with the most important information being presented first. Citations should be added in a References section at the end.WikiHollis (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chaffee_Turner_U3PR

Summary

This article discusses the implementation and the impacts of the RESTORE Act after the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This Act was a reaction to this spill and detailed how resources would be used to counteract the effects it had on the environment.

Major Points

For an article which could so easily produce bias, the author does an excellent job of staying neutral. The language used is very unbiased but clear, which is a very positive trait for an article such as this. However, in the overview of the article the author mentions "environmental, ecological, and economic" impacts the spill had, but does not fully describe each of these in detail. It might be helpful to add a section that details the extent of the damage done. I imagine there are a number of reports describing specific damage, and ideally there would be some statistics that might help the reader have a clearer understanding of how these so strongly affected the local environment and economy. (These points are touched upon in the "Origins" section, but I feel as though they could be expanded upon for the benefit of the reader.) It might also be helpful to describe the beneficiaries of the Act in a bit more detail. This addition is not absolutely necessary and can be left up to discretion of the author, but if more detail was available it might not hurt for non-economic-minded readers. The author also does a good job of including external links within the article, both to other articles that already exist as well as articles which have yet to be created.

Minor Points

While I am sure this is just because these articles are a work in progress, I feel it would be a good idea to remind the author to be sure to cite sources! A references section is a must. Otherwise I would only note that before an acronym is used (e.g. BP), the author should make sure the full title is presented first so the reader knows to what the acronym refers.