User:AlexVonGod/Food rescue/0xtomato Peer Review

A. Neutral Voice


 * 1) Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice.
 * 2) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone.

The opening sentence of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section is a great display of neutral tone; introducing the source first is a fantastic way to have a sentence be pure reporting and no opinion.

I think the use of the word “harmful” in the first sentence of the second paragraph could be eliminated to make the tone more neutral. Your job is to report the facts, not convince the reader whether or not greenhouse gas emissions are harmful or not.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) Note any sentences/sections where you think the author might be struggling with accidental plagiarism/close paraphrasing. What strategies would you suggest for the author to help with this?

I think you’re mostly good on close paraphrasing! There are some sentences, like the one about Aria, that read pretty similar to the source, but I attribute that more to the fact that sentences that contain lots of numbers and data are going to always sound similar.

C. Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written.
 * 2) Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.
 * 3) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.

I think the best written sentence you have is “Because food waste decays more quickly, food waste contributes more methane emissions than anything else that goes to landfills.” It’s very clean and simple while explaining a relevant phenomenon that makes the issue as a whole important.

There weren’t any sentences I had to reread to understand, but there are some sentences that I think could be changed to help the overall comprehension. In the second paragraph, try using some connecting phrases at the beginning of the sentences to make the piece feel less like a list of information from various sources.

As for spelling/grammar, the only issue I caught is that you should change “biggest advocates in” to “biggest advocates for”.

D. Rubric


 * 1) Review the rubric for the Wikipedia project final draft
 * 2) Write 1-2 sentences of feedback for each section, summarizing what (if anything) the author could do to improve in that area. (You do not need to assign points or note what category of the rubric you think they fall into, unless you think it would be helpful.)

The lead section looks good to me. The grammar of the opening sentence is a bit confusing, but it’s technically correct and I can’t think of a better way to word it without breaking it up into multiple sentences–just something to consider. Other than that, the lead section checks all the boxes.

The main body of the article is strong as well. Once you added the section on greenhouse gas emissions, all of the lead section’s content was adequately explained in the body. If I had one critique of the main body, it would be that some sections are really light on information, such as composting and human consumption. Touching up those with some additional information and sources would make your article even better.

As for references, almost all of yours are perfect, with the exception of Source 6, chomp.energy. It’s never optimal to cite a company as a source, especially one whose business model depends on food waste being an issue, which incentivizes them to exaggerate or mislead. I think especially considering that you’re using that source to tell a fact about general food waste emissions, which can likely be found from another source, it’s best to change that one.

The existing article doesn’t need too much critique. Personally, I’m not a fan of the articles that have 80 sections on “X topic in X country” at the bottom, but I had the same issue with the article I was editing and I don’t really see a way around organizing it like that, since on their own, country-specific versions of the topic often don’t merit their own Wikipedia page. As I said before, maybe add some information to the composting and human consumption sections, and your article will be great.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well?

Finding the content gap on greenhouse gas emissions is definitely the author’s best move. It was previously mentioned only in the lead section, which is a big problem in and of itself; when also considering that greenhouse gas emissions are a huge and important aspect of food waste, this content gap was in drastic need of filling.


 * 1) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?

Change the source from chomp.energy, add some more information to the under-filled sections, and this article will be in a great position.


 * 1) Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.

Not much more—great job overall!

General info
AlexVonGod
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:AlexVonGod/Food rescue
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Food rescue

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)