Talk:Back to Work Coalition

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Feedback for Class

Very interesting! The timeline is helpful in following along with the process. The only thing I can think of to improve it would be more information on the "controversy." Also, good sources.--Khigdo2 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a very good start, and I really liked the timeline! The quotes also added a lot to the article. I was a little confused about what you meant by "de facto" moratorium, but other than that I thought it was good. Nkobet1 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article! I got some ideas about my own article based upon how you structured it. If you were to add anything, and I don't think you necessarily need to, it would be more about the impact on people and states. I also think it would be interesting to know what individual states think about the Back to Work Coalition or what, if anything, has been the administration's response to the coalition. But great job!!! Awomb (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting topic and you've done a good job with your research thus far. I am working with a subject that deals with the Deepwater Horizon spill also! However, it seems like you are having a little trouble with the Wiki-style of writing. My first suggestion is to move your overview section above your contents box so that it is the first thing the user sees. Also, when you are trying to quote a reference, you only have to type the long citation once and then use the shortcut reference that Wiki provides for successive referrals to the same source. It helps if you use the toolbar above the text box when creating your citations.

You may want to consider also making your members section a list instead of a paragraph so it is more user-friendly. Finally, you may want to consider expanding your section on the controversy over the issue - because it is such a sensitive subject the more information you present, the less biased you look and the better informed the user will be.

Erinfhymel (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great article that really sheds some light on a controversial issue in America right now. I like that it deals with a specific aspect of the general oil spill issue that allows it to function as a stand alone article. I think it makes a significant contribution to the issue, and sheds some light on how people are coping with the after effects of the spill. It might be a good idea to elaborate on the alleged economic impact of the de facto moratorium. Perhaps you could mention how important the oil and gas industry is to the Louisiana economy and cite how many Louisianans are employed by the drilling industry. That might better explain why the issue is so galvanizing to the people of Louisiana. --John rb11 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to Work Coalition. 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) 13:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]