User:Daniellleee0982/Illegal mining/JesseChadder Peer Review

General info
Daniellleee0982
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniellleee0982/Illegal_mining?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Illegal mining
 * Illegal mining

Evaluate the drafted changes
Clarity

- Article is clear about the topic it is covering.

- Lead paragraph is concise and does a good job at summarizing the content talked about in the remainder of the article.

- Possibly could add a couple sentences in the Lead paragraph going into more detail on where corruption and illegal mining is most common, would help tie in the Regional issues subsection later on.

- Still unclear if you're going to incorporate any of the original Lead paragraph into the new one, if you are, maybe add in the "80 percent of small-scale mining operations can be categorized as illegal" fact, this could give more context to readers of how big this issue is.

- There's some small spelling mistakes throughout, like "minors" instead of "miners" in the Environmental section, or "habit" instead of "habitat" in the Deforestation subsection. I'm sure these will be fixed by publication time though so it's probably just a nitpick.

- Overall I think what you've added is well written and adds to the existing article.

Structure

- The article is clearly separated based on topic.

- I think the order of the sections also makes sense.

- The subsections are also placed under the appropriate section headings, like Water pollution and Deforestation under Environmental impacts.

- The sentences for the most part seem to flow into one another without any abrupt pauses. There are some places where adding a connecting word like similarly could be good, like between the second and third sentences in the Environmental impact section.

Balanced Coverage and Neutrality

- The article seems to have been written without any bias or agenda.

- Each section has an appropriate length, with none being significantly longer than the other.

- The article doesn't try to persuade or influence the reader in any particular direction

- Words that would indicate a personal opinion are avoided like I or me.

- No claims are made without a proper citation

- Citations are clearly listed in a reference list at the bottom of the article

Sources

- All links are working and direct the reader to the original source

- All sources are relevant to the topic

- Sources are all recent, within the last five years

- Sources are from appropriate places and avoid blogs, self publicated material and news sites

Improvement suggestions

- The section on Environmental impacts could be expanded upon a little bit, maybe incorporating more of the original text from the unedited article, like the impacts of illegal vs legal mining.

- Maybe for the section on Water pollution you could add what the most common illnesses are from mercury or other heavy metal poisoning and perhaps where this problem is most prevalent (the country or region).

- I would personally add a citation after every sentence instead of one after the entire paragraph just to eliminate any confusion about the information's origin.

- Another thing that should be done before posting is linking the key words in your article to other existing articles to provide readers with more information.

- Maybe the first sentence of the Environmental impacts section could be rephrased to avoid calling the miners careless. Could possibly substitute that with something like, "environmental procedures are often not followed by mining companies and their employees which may lead to irreparable damage to the environment........"

- I think the article would benefit from the addition of more sources to bolster the statements made.

- Overall I think what you added is good, I'm just not sure if the quantity is enough, perhaps under the Environmental impacts section you could add an additional subsection or two on Climate change, air pollution, specific species most affected/at risk, etc....