User:Kyra Robertson/Surface mining/LivyRosa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Kyra Robertson


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kyra Robertson/Surface mining


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Surface mining

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Leading Section:

The leading section is not included in the draft and I'm guessing that it's because it was not edited by this user, so I can't really comment on it and I'll just assume that the whoever is working on this page has looked at the leading section and found that it was suitable for the topic. But the content has an introduction section to lead into the specific types of impacts and I think that its a good idea because it introduces some of the issues with closing a mine and conditions that it will left in when closed. There are some notes in this section that clarification and a citation is need which are some things that should be looked into though. For the sentence that needs clarification, I would suggest putting in "surface mining" instead of "it" because the sentence could potentially be misinterpreted as surface mining having both negative and positive effects on human health.

Content:

There is a lot of content that was added and it was all relevant and there is no information added that should be in a different section. I would suggest maybe adding the effects that the miners will experience because their health effects are compared to those of people living in nearby communities but the miners symptoms are not listed like those of the people living close to the mines. Overall, i found the information added interested and up to date as they were from sources that are relatively recent.

Tone and Balance:

I think that the tone of the article is neutral, which is hard to do when talking about health effects. The article contained statements about the certain kinds of effects but they were backed by evidence and also included what types of regulations existed to prevent any health effects, which I think is neutral information and is not a persuasive argument for readers to be convinced to take one side.

Sources and References:

All of the information added has attached references mostly from scientific articles but also from a government document and a university website. All of the sources seem recent and the links to the articles work as well. I looked at some other articles on google scholar and the sources used in the sandbox draft do reflect/resemble the information from other articles that I was reading.

Organization:

I really like the organization and the flow of the article's content. I think it's a great idea to have a general heading for the Impact with some introductory information and then separate sub-headings for specifically aimed impacts (the human and environmental). I'm wondering if it would make more sense to change title of first heading to something more broad since the introduction information is less specific and specific titles/sub-headings are given later on with the Human Health and Environmental Impact headings, it just seems a little repetitive but it's a tiny thing so it doesn't need to change.