Talk:Broad form deed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrightestTwilight, Turnercr1, TheLeeDavis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Luke Causby

In this article I see a-lot of good things. First of all your article includes plenty of great information right now and really provides good insight on the Broad Form Deed. Although, you should have a heading for your article by now and I was kind of confused on what the article was really about at first. But other than that this is a great start to your article and I did not see any plagiarism associated with the article. So far you have a great start to your article, just add a main header and you are good to go, good job!

Andrew Watters Peer Review

This article contains a good amount of information and adequately describes the Broad Form Deed. The article also has a nice flow to it. I didnt see any grammar or spelling issues and didnt find any problems with plagiarism. I thought the lead section could use a little bit more information but it was an overall good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattersac (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Matthew Stockton

-Opening section is well constructed with the definition of a Broad Form Deed right away, so that readers can have that understanding in the back of their mind while continuing through the article. -Contents box is a good addition to also let the readers quickly view what sections are in the article and allows to quickly access these sections. -I like the set up of the timeline through 1950s-1980s -Also enjoy how you addressed the implications of the broad form deed today, and how other agreements have stemmed from this deed. -I do think that there should be an introduction of the split estate, or put the description of the split estate before "most common today" so that the reader can be introduced to this idea and then address that it is the most common today. -Google searched the Doochin V. Rackley case and I do not see any plagiarism in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocktonmj (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

comments from Kaytlin HN

overall this page looks killer. All of the information I saw had an accompanying citation and was well elaborated upon. Grammar and punctuation looked top notch upon initial analysis, and just like the rest of the reviewers, the page needs a main/giant title and enough information in the lead section to touch on each subheading so that readers get a real-feel for the rest of the page. Also, personally, in the implications section, I might include social effects/implications of the Broad form deed to strengthen that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesternewnamke (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Kyle's peer review

I think this article looks good from the first review. I think that there needs to be a big header at the top so that I know exactly what I am reading. The first section is short and too the point and I like that, it gives the reader a chance to understand the topic ver so slightly and you also give them a chance to learn more about the history and how it effects todays times. I enjoyed this topic, keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylegeorgecoal333 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Megan Poole

Very good Wiki article. I noticed that there are a few missing commas and awkward word phrasing throughout the article. I don't know the best way to do this without going through and changing it myself but here are some suggestions for each heading throughout the article. These are very simple fixes and are easy to spot.

Royal Mines There should be a semi-colon in the 3rd sentence: "operations of the country; the King had authority." There should be a comma here: "After the American revolution, states...." "resulted in the development of new applications." Semi-colon instead of a comma: "; this included the broad form deed."

John CC Mayo Replace "through" with "by" in the first sentence. after combining their financial savings they began to work." That part of the sentence was just a little awkward. "Kentucky Wesleyan College library, Mayo... "Mayo was able to determine those who had property... "and started making deals." Sentence with "hinged in it" is a awkward and could be worded differently. "as well as" in stead of "and in" in the 5th sentence. "After facing controversy..."

Details of Broad Form Deed "When it was created, the...."

Early Impact "During the late 1880s, ....." "Mountain folk" sounds like slang. "and were open to mineral buyers..." "Mineral buyers and travelers. This hospitality shifted to hostility by 1900..."

1950s "the 1950s, the broad..." No semi-colon after "Tennessee", use a period instead.

1970s "Almost 18 years after the 1956 B. decisions, ..." "Slow: instead of "yet" in the 3rd sentence.

1980s "Specifically allowed in the deed." "Omitted, the Kentucky..." "; that period of time..." "In Akers v. Baldwin, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganpoole1212 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to make a comment about grammar but to simply point out that the article is totally false. Broadform deeds are still being used in Kentucky. A clay company got a strip mining permit on my family farm based on a broadform deed dated 1929 and coal companies we using them by purchasing a part of properties from any heirs and mining the property if they only own a small percentage of it. The company that is trying to mine of our family farm pays $300 property tax on mineral righs on however many of the 40 some properties it has not already stripped that were purchased from a company going out of business over 30 years ago for less than 100 each. We pay several thousand on ours I would estimate not counting our homes, but is hard to estimate exactly. We went to an appeals process with the state which required us making bimonthly trips to Frankfort and the arbitrator did not make a decision so we dropped it so we don't even know if it is legal. I called my state reperesentive, Patrick Flannery and he said it was illegal and even called my lawyer before telling me it would be too much trouble to do anything about it. You should also check The Appalachian Voice website and their law center. Their lawyer Mary Cromer lost the case to stop the companies from mining properties when they only own a small part. She also said that the deed that separetes the fireclay from our property is not a broadform deed although several lawyers say it is. Section 19-2 of the Ky constitution says coal on the state seems to think that because this is clay we fell through to cracks 35 years ago and Mr. Flannery said it would be too much trouble to do anything about it now. There is some coal over some of the clay which I guess we will just lose if the property is stripped. I don't know if what you printed about the other states is true, but I wish you would research this and print truth about Ky as it may help make any honest people we have representing us, if there are any, aware of this situation and maybe do something about it. 98.22.204.243 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)