User:Davidjsmith97/Canadian Energy Centre/Davidjsmith97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section of this article could be improved. While it does clearly explain what the CEC is, it could better contextualize that it is a product by and for the Government of Alberta under Premier Kenney and not, as the name suggests, a national organization. The lead section includes some confusing wording about the funding for the CEC which should be fixed and/or moved to a different section of the article. The section also makes reference to controversy but without explaining which parties take issue with the CEC, there should be a qualifying statement about why the centre is controversial outside of some sort of dispute over a logo.

The content of the article is thin and could be greatly improved with more detail and better writing. There are sections that include information that is not linked together or following any sort of thematic flow. While it is informative, it is difficult to read and if the reader does not have a background knowledge of Canadian politics it is difficult to understand why certain bits of information are referenced at all.

The tone of the article is neutral and well balanced. The topic is closely related to controversial files like the Canadian oil and gas sector and climate/anti-oil activism. The article does a good job of remaining unbiased, albeit at the expense of fully fleshing out the topic.

While the organization of the article in terms of the sections is good, the information presented within those sections is lacking and therefore the article could be considered underdeveloped.

The references in this article rely heavily on news coverage which can be problematic as some sections of the article will become dated and need to be rewritten if there is a change in government in Alberta. The article is thoroughly sourced, but short. Every section of the article could be fleshed out more with better context and details without needing to add more sources. The sources themselves are relevant and reliable.

The content is not particularly well organized and the writing in places is disjointed and lacking clear direction, it could be improved by some basic copy editing throughout.

There are no images utilized in this article, which is especially strange in the section on the controversy over logos which naturally lends itself to a visual aid.

This article is adequate, but underdeveloped.