User:Nightlymist/Carbon offset/Trentjohnson17 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nightlymist


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nightlymist/Carbon offset


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carbon offset

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The fifth paragraph in the Lead pertains to offset projects. There should be something added to that paragraph (in the sentence that focuses on Renewable energy) involving the PV technology that has been brought up for the first time in this draft. Aside from that, solar has already been mentioned in that sentence and going into too much detail in the lead about things like the IEA might be too cumbersome.

It might be good to add a small bit to the Lead about agriculture impacting soil offsetting ability since agriculture is already very briefly mentioned in that paragraph, but in a somewhat unrelated way to the way it is being talked about in this draft.

Honestly, the Lead in this article seems way too long and detailed. Articles that are way longer on Wiki have way shorter Leads. There might be room to improve the Lead by shortening through removing info that doesn't belong in the intro and moving it to where it does belong. The last paragraph for example has information at the end of it that doesn't really fit in a Lead and might be better suited in another section.

Content

The proposed information is all relevant to the article, especially the new sections for Offset projects. I think that there could be more added to the subsections. In the Renewable energy section I think that you might be able to add information about where/who has began implementing these strategies that are brought up in both the article and your proposed additions. The agriculture and tourism subsections seem incomplete. Both are introduced as a talking point, but neither is expanded on to the point of explaining the projects. Could you find information on what is being done about reduced soil ability to offset carbon? Could you find information on what governments are doing and/or airlines are doing about all the pollution tourism causes?

My understanding of the QAS is that it is responsible only for evaluating UK carbon offsetting. So although the info you have brought up in the QAS addition is important, I think it would be better suited for a new section. The new section can called Government Action, or something of that sort. I think that way you will be able to bring up other country's goals, as you have done with Germany.

I noticed one particular section in the article relating to controversies surrounding the tourism sector and how some have criticized the use of donations to projects in developing countries to line the pockets of airlines etc. Maybe a section involving the impact of these projects on developing countries would be a good way to cover underrepresented viewpoints.

Tone and Balance

The suggestions are mostly balanced. A few sentences are questionably written in regards to this, I think. For example, writing that soil is able to offset less carbon now due to the practices of scientists and farmers seems like a blame placement to me. If you can cite something that shows that these two industries have contributed a lot to the diminished offsetting abilities then that might justify it a bit. But still, I think rewording this might be the best option. Also, unless you can provide a citation saying that certain tourism companies have made it their priority to focus on carbon pollution, writing that it is being prioritized seems a bit biased. Make sure to avoid phrases like that.

References

The references you used all seem to be from peer reviewed or official sources and you are portraying the information you found accurately. However, a few places I saw were either not cited or cited in the wrong place. For example, when referring to the Germany goals the citation is placed before Germany's actual goal. At first glance it looks like the goal is then not cited. Only after I opened the journal article did I see the goal is in it. So moving the citation to after that sentence, or adding the citation a second time would be good.

Also, the unreliability 0f PV technology and research towards improving it needs to be cited.

I assume all of these references were obtained from the internet, so make sure they all include some redirect to the source. Rather than the reader going on Google to search the title of the paper, they are able to just click it this way.

Organization

Sometimes the writing was a bit hard to understand. I got what it was saying, but the sentence regarding tourism and COVID, for example, was kind of out of order. There are just a few grammatical mistakes throughout that should be fixed to convey more professionalism and clarity. (Example: Don't need to write that the soil is now holding less carbon in the soil since that is redundant.)

The organization of the ideas is mostly good. Just remember the part about Germany's goals. From my understanding that should be a different section due to the nature of the QAS.

Talk Page

There is only a single question/comment on the Talk Page, and it has not been answered. Nobody has discussed the Lead, which is why it's so long (multiple authors not collaborating). I would probably try to answer the question on the Talk Page and then give a question of your own or add a post stating what you intend to add. Maybe inquire about who some of the key players in these projects are, and maybe write that you intend to expand on the Types of Projects section if anyone has any suggestions on what they think is missing since, ideally, they have done their research into the topic as well to get a strong sense of what is important with regards to this topic.

Overall

Nice work. I think the sections relating to the types of projects have potential to really improve the article. When reading the article I didn't think they did a great job of actually explaining the implementation of the projects and instead mostly focused on the rationale behind them. In my opinion, the best way to contribute is to not make the same mistake. On the prompts you have brought up really make sure to go into the logistics of how these projects are being implemented or the futures they hold. As of now it seems like you have a good hold on how they relate to carbon offsetting, but not on how the offsetting is being initiated. That is what I would put my focus on going forward.

Well done, though! I look forward to seeing the final result!