User:Krystawalicki/E-waste in Africa/Cv1620 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Krystawalicki


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Krystawalicki/E-waste in Africa
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, this is a good draft. It begins to develop a main purpose for the article which is to summarize the problem of E-waste being dumped on the African continent by developed countries, generally doing it in a neutral manner. I especially appreciate that the lead starts citing statistics and other number figures, helping explain the magnitude of the problem which I believe would not be as effective if those numbers were not included. Also, the lead is concise and introduces the key elements of the article, which I see will mainly be divided into the economic, political, and health consequences. However, some sentences in the lead could be transformed to be more neutral. For example, the sentence about E-waste potentially having financial benefits seems too argumentative and a change of word choice will make it more neutral. It could perhaps be replaced by a sentence summarizing the financial impacts. Also, not all sentences in the lead are properly sourced, which may be a problem for Wikipedia’s plagiarism policies and for the encouragement of further research. For example, the fact that Ghana has the largest E-waste dumps is not attributed to any source, putting into question the validity of the claim and potentially may count as plagiarism. Perhaps finding support for these unsourced but meaningful claims may solve the two problems above.

In the sections, “Production and Trade of E-Waste,” and, “Economic Conditions and Impacts,” I especially appreciate that all claims made are properly sourced, contributing to the claim’s validity and encouraging future readers to do further research so they find the topic interesting. I love that each section is concentrated on one aspect of the E-waste problem in Africa and that they do not deviate off topic. However, in terms of structure, I would recommend that the sections on economic, political, and health consequences be turned into subsections to have better clarity on the problem and the article’s presentation of it. Also, I found it interesting that in the latter section, it mentions that people are employed informally in dumps regardless of negative health consequences. I think that in the political consequences section, it may be interesting to look at whether or not governments across the continent provide work benefits to those impacted.

Lastly, I appreciate that most of the sources used in the article draft are journal articles which one could tell establish a lot of notability and credibility in it. I think that that is what my article lacks and will try to use more journalistic sources and less government and think tank sources. A small note that Source #1 is written incorrectly as it does not include the title of the source and the link should not include the Berkeley proxy access as with the proxy, the article is not publicly accessible to everyone. Overall, great work at developing a promising draft!