User:Pandabackpack152/Mountaintop removal mining/AMileAMinute Peer Review
The lead when reviewing at the current time has not been changed to reflect the added information. In terms of organization some of the sentences can be condense into one if they are also rephrasing the same source, if not they are not very long and need a citation at the end of them. The sources that were cited for the other sentences are all reliable and seem to be both secondary and primary sources!
One of the paragraphs added for the bad practice section of the sandbox article use the same citation for most of the sentences which may be a biased argument. Alternatively the information could be condensed into a few sentences rather than two paragraphs. Some of the sentences are vague and can be omitted if they do not use a quote from the source or rephrase the content of the source.
Overall I would recommend finding one or two more sources for the paragraphs that mainly use the same source and to cut those paragraphs down into concise additions to the main article a they currently clash with the current writing style of the Mountain Top Mining Article. The added information matches the topic of the sections of the article they choose to work on!
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing?
Pandabackpack152
Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Pandabackpack152/Mountaintop removal mining
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Mountaintop removal mining
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]In the bad practices section they mention that their are old politics that are being upheld via the SMCRA but not what these old politics are. similarly the Clean Air Act is mentioned but not what the negative political impacts of low-sulfur coal are on the public or the coal industry. Overall some additions of more politics based sources on this topic would aid in filling an environmental politics content gap.