User:Dohanminhtho/Acid rain/Kloth017 Peer Review

General info
Dohanminhtho
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dohanminhtho/Acid rain
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Acid rain
 * Acid rain

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The edited lead does a good job of leading into the new body by describing human health impacts as a result of NO2 and SO3 exposure. When this information is translated into the Wiki page the editor should still keeps the original piece explaining what acid rain is, because the edited lead does not really contain a good introductory sentence. I would make sure to weave the original wiki page body content into the lead as well.

Content: Overall the new content being added (adverse human affects from acid rain) is relevant to the topic. This is especially true because in the original wiki page it contradicts, saying that there are no adverse human affects because the rain it too diluted. The content seems up to date as well, with most of the citations provided being 2020 or later. If I were to add anything in this section, I would consider adding a historical section about exposure. Are there sources that mention acid rain human demographic exposures- like how many cases we have seen of extreme effects, and of what groups are we seeing the most negative affects from? This might address an equity gap that is not currently mentioned.

Tone and Balance: I would say that the tone of the edited draft is neutral, overall it does not seem to be persuading the reader one way or another. The only thing I would say that affects the tone of the draft is the last sentence, just because it is in the second person, and reads like the article is telling you what to do as an individual. Maybe if it was restructured that sentence might read better.

Sources and References: The sources are relatively current, and are from reputable scientific and peer reviewed journals. They cover a diverse array of authors as well.

Organization: I think that the way that the draft sections are structured is easy to follow and logically presented. Grammar/spelling wise, I think that the sentence in the lead "Acid rain affects human health that cause respiratory..." should be restructured because it does not flow well. The last sentence as well I think should be reworked.

Images and Media: No images or media was added into the edited draft.

Overall Impressions: Overall I think that the sections that have been added are good. They are cohesive, they inform the public and they are supported by a variety of knowledgeable sources. I would consider expanding on the lead section to incorporate the rest of the original article. I would also consider adding another section on cases of acid rain exposures to understand if there are marginalized groups that are more affected to these exposures, addressing equity in the article. I am wondering, are there any values you have found about what concentrations of NO2 and SO3 people are finding acid rain to have- that would be helpful to include to compare to the federal government maximums. Lastly, I would take a look at the sentences I have mentioned to restructure, just to help improve the flow of the article.