User:Marissaokum/Polluter pays principle/GardenerOfMen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Marissaokum


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Polluter pays principle

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is concise and straight to the point. The sentence added to it is very relevant. It emphasizes the fact that the polluter pays principle does not only entail being responsible for environmental damages, but also pollution prevention. It goes a step further and I think it's really important to make that distinction. It adds clarity and helps readers understand the concept. The citation added alongside it comes from a reputable source, however it is sort of outdated, so maybe find a more recent one.

There are a few grammatical mistakes, such as periods missing at the end of a couple new sentences:

"This principle has also been used to put the costs of pollution prevention on the polluter "

"This mandate requires oil companies to pay for damages, regardless of whether or not the spill is their fault "

There also seems to be a typo in the "History" section right after "Jean-Baptiste Fressoz henu."

I am not sure why my peer removed the Sweden and Switzerland sections. They were very relevant to the topic. Especially since waste management in Switzerland is practically based on the polluter pays principle itself.

This article could use more examples of practical applications. The heading does say "Applications by Country" but the information written is not very... informative. Laws. decrees, and principles are briefly mentioned for the countries at hand, but how are they being implemented? Do they actually make a difference? What are their outcomes? The expenses they entail? There is a pop-up message from Wikipedia that can be seen at the very beginning saying "This article is missing information about the topic's basis in economics," and I believe it is a good pointer in the correct direction my peer could take.

The added section on Canada is a good start for something that could be developed further. The source cited is from a very recently modified webpage from the government of Canada, therefore it can be considered

Overall, the article maintains neutrality and does not attempt to persuade or dissuade readers to take a specific stance towards the polluter pays principle. It remains impartial and solely presents facts.