Talk:New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions
(Created page with " == Peer Review == This is a very good introduction to the issue of mining in New Zealand's Schedule Four land. It neatly summarises") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Peer Review == | == Peer Review == | ||
This is a very good introduction to the issue of mining in New Zealand's Schedule Four land. It | This is a very good introduction to the issue of mining in New Zealand's Schedule Four land and neatly summarises the main points of contention, the arguments used by both sides and the positives that accrued from the dialogue process. | ||
What follows are suggestions for potentially enhancing and clarifying the information contained in the article. | |||
'''Introduction - facts and opinions''' | |||
It would be useful for readers to know when exactly the National-led government proposed removing conservation land from Schedule 4 and what sparked the proposal to begin with (maybe a sentence or two on the state and structure of New Zealand's economy, and the political-economic philosophy of the government, if possible). | |||
By stating "[t]here are some positive steps associated with this decision" the article is already moving away from a neutral description of events and clearly takes sides by inferring that the proposal was mostly negative from the beginning. That is fine, but it should maybe be a clear statement of such. Currently, the opening opinion comes from the opposing Green camp only. | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 8 March 2011
Peer Review
This is a very good introduction to the issue of mining in New Zealand's Schedule Four land and neatly summarises the main points of contention, the arguments used by both sides and the positives that accrued from the dialogue process.
What follows are suggestions for potentially enhancing and clarifying the information contained in the article.
Introduction - facts and opinions
It would be useful for readers to know when exactly the National-led government proposed removing conservation land from Schedule 4 and what sparked the proposal to begin with (maybe a sentence or two on the state and structure of New Zealand's economy, and the political-economic philosophy of the government, if possible).
By stating "[t]here are some positive steps associated with this decision" the article is already moving away from a neutral description of events and clearly takes sides by inferring that the proposal was mostly negative from the beginning. That is fine, but it should maybe be a clear statement of such. Currently, the opening opinion comes from the opposing Green camp only.