User talk:RosamondColton/sandbox

Samantha's Peer Review

The lead section is short and brief and solely discusses the consequences of mercury poisoning. The consequences that the First Nation community faces are extremely important however by only depicting the First Nations point of view I believe that it does create a partial bias. The author depicts a proper understanding of the issues that the community faces, as well as the socio-economic factors that are at hand. Although the author completely depicts the First Nations socio-economic and cultural factors it would be interesting to a have a deeper understanding of their cultural liaison with the fisheries. Additionally, I believe that it would be important to depict the Chemical corporations' point of view. For example why they choose to discharge it within the First Nations community ever. What are the socio-economic factors for them, such as what are their alternative options? This can alter the bias that is portrayed within the article.

Similarly, it would be interesting to incorporate a legal standpoint to the article, such as including what is legal what is not at the national and international level. By comparing different types of environmental racism in the world the author sheds light on precedents that can be used to support a legal standpoint. Additionally, the article strongly depicts that the poisoning of the water by the mercury dumping is ethically wrong, as well as it causes physical harm.

By including these points, such as the point of view of the corporation as well as the legal standpoint the author offers a multidimensional view that depicts the reality of the situation. The author includes an interesting comparison of different cases where mercury poisoning caused by corporations which supports the point of environmental racism. However, I believe that by placing environmental racism at the center of the structure of the article will cause bias because it is a subjective point. It would be important to incorporate environmental racism within the First Nations perspective but it is important to not include it within the corporation's point of view. It is important to include multiple diverse perspectives in order to ensure that no bias is found. As it is the objective is to blame the corporation for the negative factors that the First Nations community is facing.

Samanthawilliamson (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samantha,

You are absolutely correct-- my standpoint has been rather biased. I appreciate the feedback beyond belief, as I have found some useful sources regarding the legal standpoints, the Canadian government, and Indigenous standpoints about fish and fisheries. However, I wonder by including other instances of environmental racism if my article will be convoluted. Seeing as this is an article about a specific instance of environmental racism, I wonder if it might deviate from the subject matter if I discuss different instances of environmental racism.

Best, RosamondColton (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)RosamondColton