User:Graciebook/Green grabbing/Tieot Peer Review

General info
Graciebook
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Graciebook/Green grabbing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Green grabbing

Evaluate the drafted changes
Neutral Voice:


 * Strong Neutral Voice
 * There are many examples in your paper of a very strong neutral voice that is presenting the facts in an objective manner, even when approaching emotional or controversial topics. "The $9 billion project's debt, incurred through loans from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank, is backed by Moroccan government guarantees." This example strikes me as one of the best, where you present a fact and the causes behind it without getting into unsubstantiated claims of your own.
 * Possible Improvements
 * "This dual deprivation further marginalizes rural communities." (end of India solar section) - this part seems to me like it is more fitting in an argumentative writing, or at least I don't think it adds any different information that cannot be concluded through the objective facts that you have presented in the previous sentences. There may be a better way to present this dynamic than to just claim at the end.

Close Paraphrasing and Plagiarism:


 * Overall, I would recommend just reading through your own works from top to bottom and making sure that what you have written sounds consistent with your voice and style of writing. This helped me in the way that I would find sentences that did not sound right for my unique voice, and those ended up being accidentally similar to the sources that I was writing from.
 * Things like, "green grabbing borrows from historical stories of colonial resource plunder" may be an example of this, but the best way it for you to self-analyze what feels pulled from something other than yourself. (Second paragraph of energy section)
 * Other sentences such as "In the case of Morocco's solar projects, such as the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station, which employs concentrated solar-thermal power (CSP) technology, diverting water resources away from drinking and agriculture in an already semi-arid region." (Morocco solar section) with grammar errors may also be casualties of pulling parts of sentences from articles while adding your own influence.

Readability:


 * Strong Sentences
 * "Often, as countries and governments enter transnational climate agreements such as the Paris Agreement or the Kyoto Protocol, they commit to reaching certain sustainability targets." - Very strong sentence, gets right to the point early in the section for energy and contributes several different details important to the topic in an effective manner.
 * Weaker sentences (and grammar errors)
 * "Green grabbing has been prominent, particularly in the energy sector." (start of Energy section) - This sentence feels like it could be reworded slightly for clarity. e.g. 'green grabbing has been particularly prominent in the energy sector...' and then lead into another sentence or include more detail.
 * "In the case of Morocco's solar projects, such as the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station, which employs concentrated solar-thermal power (CSP) technology, diverting water resources away from drinking and agriculture in an already semi-arid region." (Morocco solar section) - This sentence obviously has a typo or grammar error that slipped through editing.
 * "The drive for renewable energy, especially wind parks, in post-crisis Greece, has given rise to green grabbing." (Greece wind section) - This sentence seems choppy to me, and could use some rewriting to include less comma breaks.

Rubric:


 * Lead Section
 * Your edits to the lead section seem to cover what edits you made pretty well. I wouldn't change anything here, but I might read through the entire lead section one last time to make sure there isn't any facets of green grabbing in the article body that you think is left out.


 * Article
 * I found organization to be your strong suit in this piece, so I wouldn't recommend changing anything there. If there is any point in this part of the rubric that you could work on it could definitely be tone. Your tone is generally fairly neutral, but there are certainly some parts where you make what sounds like claims or opinions, and this may just be a casualty of the writing style. Try to think about presenting things as facts, rather than making connections that are not backed by evidence that you have specifically put in the articles or are baked by sources that you are following.


 * References
 * No complaints here. You have a wide array of sources which, from a general scan and a look into some of them, are sufficiently appropriate for the article, and you reference them frequently in the article, leaving little to no confusion about where your statements are coming from. This is also bolstered by your strong organization.


 * Existing Article
 * Your edits fit in well with the existing article, and add important information in a well structured manner. No complaints.

Final Questions/Considerations:


 * Your greatest strength in this article was your organization. You made detailed sections covering different facets of energy in green grabbing, sectioning them off in effective ways and presenting a succinct couple of examples for each section that added to the comprehension of the topic.
 * I would probably say all you need is one more rundown over the article for grammatical issues and some various tonal issues, and then you will have a very complete project.