User:GibbsOtis/Environmental impact of fracking/Nagashima0245 Peer Review

General info
GibbsOtis
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
A. Neutral Voice
 * 1) “The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has a special exemption preventing indigenous groups from protecting their water sources with quality standards” and “A spatial analysis of the demographics of residents around fracking sites found that median incomes around wells in Pennsylvania were substantially lower” were both very strong sentences that I feel were really good additions to the existing text in the article.
 * 2) Within the community impacts section, the author matches the energy of the already existing content in the article. Much of the content within this section lists the negative impacts of fracking on nearby communities. My suggestion might be to try and cover more sides or this section regarding who, if anyone, benefits from fracking in the community - just to be able to cover all the bases when it comes to claiming that the impacts felt on a community level outweigh any positive outcome results due to fracking. Additionally, while I agree with this statement; “When looking at the regulations of fracking as an issue of land rights, one must consider the historic injustices against Native Americans, and how these disproportionate impacts may still be perpetuated today” it might come off as argumentative to readers and I would suggest posing a question on the talk page of this article to see if any other editors might have something to say about this statement and its inclusion within this article.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) Personally, I don't see any parts of the author's edits that sound plagiarized or closely paraphrased. On the contrary, much of it seems written by themselves due to the consistent tone of voice throughout the author’s edits, their chosen focus within this article, and consistent attention to the impacts on disadvantaged communities without the protections of resources that could otherwise be used as a barrier against the act of fracking.

C. Readability


 * 1) I really appreciated the last section within the community impacts section partly due to the fact that it was a completely new section being added by the author and also due to how relevant and seamlessly it fit within the rest of the content in the section.
 * 2) Largely due to the fact that many organizations have been historically involved in the exploitation of tribal lands I had to re read edits in the policy and science section in order to get them all in order - but I do believe its important to mention these organizations(BLM, RCRA, USFS, etc.)
 * 3) None!

D. Rubric


 * 1) Introductory sentence: There was no introductory sentence edit, rather more of a focus on certain sections within the main article.
 * 2) Summary: The author summarizes certain aspects of fracking in communities but also gives specific examples.
 * 3) Context: All included edits are related and relevant in context to the sections.
 * 4) Organization: There are clear subheadings in the author's edits and is easy to follow.
 * 5) Content: All content is paired with relevant sources.
 * 6) Balance: One aspect that I might point to in terms of the balance of content and edits is that it is heavily leaning towards the negative impacts of fracking which could be due to what sections the author is choosing to edit in.
 * 7) Tone: The tone is very well established throughout the article although the author might benefit from being more neutral when presenting their own ideas of how fracking impacts communities.
 * 8) Images: No images were included in the author’s edits.
 * 9) Citations: Every statement is associated with a citation.
 * 10) Sources: All the sources fit within the content of the edits - but again, the majority of them adopt a very negative view of fracking while it aligns with the authors edits, is something to be cautious of as a neutral author on wikipedia.
 * 11) Completeness: Most citations are fully complete.
 * 12) New Section: Does not add any new sections in the author's edits.
 * 13) Re-Organization: The edits are organized and logical.
 * 14) Gaps: The key gaps within the article have been filled by the additional edits by the author within the focused on sections. Information within the section has been expanded upon and provides a more in depth analysis of fracking on communities.
 * 15) Smaller Additions: The sections being focused on by the author are critical aspects within the main article so I believe that the edits are well placed.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) I think the edits within the chosen sections match the tone and themes of the content very well. The author’s edits were added in seamlessly and are easy to read. There is little left to wonder.
 * 2) As mentioned above, the edits lean heavily into being against fracking. Again, not that I disagree with any of the additional edits and statements by the author, I think the neutrality we are supposed to be practicing while editing our Wikipedia articles could be referenced to when continuing on with the author’s edits.
 * 3) Good job Ben!