User:Jessicasabatini/Light pollution/Omenlaptop15 Peer Review

General info
Jessicasabatini
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jessicasabatini/Light pollution
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Light pollution

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

You clearly stated an introductory sentence in the Lead that concisely describes the article's topic. The only difference I noticed between your article and the original article is that they introduced the lead with the term "light pollution" while you introduced with "over-illumination." Even though the original article talks about over-illumination a little later, I think it might be a good idea to add in or start with the definition of light pollution. Although we already know what light pollution is, we should look at is as if someone is learning about this topic for the first time. Otherwise, the lead clearly introduces what the topic of the article is going to be about. The Lead includes a bit of information that was not stated in the original article, such as the statistic about how much electricity is consumed in U.S. homes. I thought that this was a good detail to include, and it was not overly detailed. However, I think it could be useful to add in a closing sentence on the Lead so that it transitions better into the next major section of the article.

Content

I feel that the content that you added was extremely relevant to the topic, and there was nothing that did not belong. In the case of light pollution, it is very important to talk about factors like the economic impact it has, while also discussing some ways to reduce light pollution. However, there may be some more content that could have been added to strengthen the article. One topic from the original article that I feel are important to include are the different types of light pollution. This does not have to be its own section in your article, but maybe throwing in some examples could help to tie in how broad of a spectrum light pollution is, and how it also have a broad impact across the economy and public. Otherwise, the content that you added is up-to-date, with most of your sources being within the past 5-20 years.

Tone and Balance

For most of the article, you did a good job staying neutral with the content. I did not feel that at any point there was a heavy bias about one thing over the other. The only sentence that I could see being taken as a bias or position being taken is in the last sentence of the economic impact section, "Hopefully scientists can predict and recommend responses to problems before changes become permanent." I think if you at least re-word this sentence, it can be seen as a more neutral stance. I suggest not using the word "hopefully."

Sources and References

All of your added content accurately reflect what the original sources say without plagiarizing or misinterpreting the information. A few of your sources were pretty recent, within the past 5 years. You did have other sources that were about 20 years old, but I think that should be okay since it added important content to your article. A couple sources were similar, but most of them varied with different types of information. I checked a couple links and they work for me.

Organization

The content in your lead is very concise and easy to read. However, I thought the content in the economic impact section was a bit lengthy and could use some organization. The original article broke it up into sections like economic impact, global impact, and ecological impact. I think that if you add some extra subheadings under the economic impact section, it would organize the content in that section a lot better, while also making it easier for the reader to navigate the article. Otherwise, I think the other sections are well organized, and I did not catch any spelling or grammatical errors.

Images and Media

Your article only includes 1 image that shows a building being illuminated by HPS. Although it may be unclear how this displays severe light pollution, your caption did a good job explaining the effects of this. I think an image of a broader spectrum or zoomed out will give the reader a bigger picture on how to comprehend the wide effects of light pollution, rather than just seeing a picture of an illuminated building. I also think it would be good to add a picture in the economic impact section or remediation section. This would also help to break up the content and help with organization.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think your article is in good shape. I expressed my thoughts on some minor tweaks or additions that you can consider before publishing the complete article. I think the most important thing for you would be organizing the text a little better, adding in some detailed information to strengthen the article, and staying neutral and unbiased when necessary.