User:Daniellleee0982/Illegal mining/Krrky Peer Review

General info
Daniellleee0982
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Daniellleee0982/Illegal mining
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Illegal mining

Evaluate the drafted changes
Clarity: statements like "Gold mining uses heavy metals most commonly mercury to extract the gold" and "Water pollution affects surrounding communities, aquatic ecosystems and land ecosystems due to the hydraulic cycle", and "Deforestation occurs during illegal mining operations so mining operations have room to function" are unspecific and lack explanation. Does all gold mining use mercury? How does it extract the gold? How does the hydrologic cycle make water pollution affect communities and the environment. It would be helpful to provide some context to each statement and find an alternative source which can support the claims. In addition, wiki links can be added to the sentences to provide more context. For example, the statement "Gold mining uses heavy metals most commonly mercury to extract the gold" can be rewritten as "illegal gold mining operations often uses heavy metals such as mercury to dissolve the gold from waste material ". This makes the statement less ambiguous and has a citation to support the claim.

the statement "Illegal mining has many consequences which have an incredible impact on the environment that in some cases is irreparable due to the carelessness minors exhibit about their environment"

Structure: The new lead section repeats information from the old lead section such as the mention of organized crime groups linked to illegal mining. combining both the old and the new lead section can add more clarity to the page and make the overall structure flow better. The environmental impacts section flows better and fits well with the structure of the article.

Balanced coverage: The information added to the environmental impacts section helps strengthen it and give the article more balance. The balance could be further improved by expanding on the statements and claims made to add more context and clarity. Adding more sources can also help improve the balance and add a wider range of information.

Neutrality: The statement "The polluted water is used for irrigation of farmland and community use, this further spreads pollution which leads to illness and death" leads the reader to think that this is a guaranteed outcome when water is polluted from illegal mining. This statement can be rewritten to tell the reader that this is a possibility not a certainty. For example, "water polluted by illegal mining can be used in local communities and for the irrigation of farmland. In some cases this can lead to illness and even death ". writing the statement like this is more neutral and doesn't push the reader to reach a conclusion that may not be true. This reworded statement also has a new source to support the claim.

Sources: The article requires more sources for the statements and claims it makes. One source at the end of a paragraph is not enough. The sources that are provided are peer reviewed and from reliable sources but do not necessarily compliment the claims being made in the article. For example, the water pollution section has a source that only indirectly supports the claims of illness and death as a result of pollution. The deforestation section has a source that mainly talks about the deforestation impacts of legal mining and only briefly mentions illegal mining. In both cases, alternate sources should be used to further support the claims.

Other suggestions: The original article also requires new sources, particularly in the environmental impacts and Nigeria section.