User:Quasimodo1420/Carbon capture and storage/BuLingReactor Peer Review

General info
Quasimodo1420
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Quasimodo1420/Carbon capture and storage
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carbon capture and storage

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.)

A. Strong neutral voice sentences: 1. If only considering technical feasibility, countries with no known viable storage sites may dismiss CCS as an option in national emissions reduction strategies. In contrast, countries with several, or an abundance of viable storage sites may consider CCS as essential to reducing emissions.

2. Because CCS is an "end of pipe" technology, part of the key to its viability as a climate change solution stems from wholistically evaluating the sustainability of the energy resource pipeline tied to a project.

Could improve neutrality: The communities targeted for hosting CCS projects may meet the geologic and technical siting criteria; however, non-technical social characterizations are equally important factors in the success of an individual project and the global deployment of this technology. ''They might not be "equally" important to success. Simply saying it is also important to ... is enough.''

C.


 * 1) Very effective sentences:
 * 2) Another aspect of CCS that concerns many project opponents is that projects only remove carbon dioxide from flue gas. Particulate matter and other toxic gas emissions would continue, which is of particular concern in places in the US where industries are in poor and/or minority communities. In many cases, CCS would not markedly improve the public or environmental health of these communities.
 * 3) Power imbalances persist between the extractive industry corporations, state, provincial, or federal governments, and the "host" communities. As a result, the impacted populations are often displaced or criminalized when seeking to defend their ancestral lands from ecological harm (see Resource Extraction in Environmental Justice).
 * 4) Comfusing sentences:
 * 5) Induced seismicity due to wastewater injection is widely documented; however these discussions are typically not in the context of nearby CCS storage sites. This prompts the need for a greater understanding of the risks of local and regional seismic impacts of storage integrity over time.
 * 6) minor mistakes: Critics also argue that CCS is only a justification for indefinite fossil fuel usage and equates to further investments into the environmental and social harms related to the fossil fuel industry

D. Rubic:


 * 1) Introductory. Looks fine. Maybe we could adjust the word orders to make what is "capturing" more obvious?
 * 2) Summary: Summary working great. The author's added content in summary part concludes about the contents he added in the main content.
 * 3) Context: All the informations is covered. I did not see anything missed.
 * 4) Organization: The "Scale" section might be retitled as "potential and current progress"? The word "scale" seems weird. The "monitoring" and "Related impacts" might could be merged into a new section "environmental impacts and countermeasures"
 * 5) Content: Contents looks fine. The talk about this technology is refined, and the related articles are just right.
 * 6) Balance: The article, after this edit, is much more balanced, talked about much controversy that wasn't covered before.
 * 7) Tone: The tone is mostly neutral. I think overall it fits our standard of neutrality.
 * 8) Images: Maybe we could add more images into the Technology components section to make us easier to understand how the system works. over all for such a long article, only two images of protesting and one statistic chart is not enough.
 * 9) Citations: Citations are legit, selected from reliable sources. I think the author's use of sources are more legit than mine.
 * 10) Souces: The sources are all available online, yet some are from academic journals needs to be purchased or visit via academic institutions, weakened accessibility slightly.
 * 11) Completeness: Perfectly fits our requirements.
 * 12) New secitons: The editor did not add new sections, but the current structure is mostly fine. I think the author have added enough content to write a new subsection or change the subsection title of "carbon emission status-quo" under section "Society and culture" -- this subtitle is a bit confusing and misleading.
 * 13) Re-organization: The editor did not do that but I think current structure is mostly fine.
 * 14) Gaps: The content gap where wasn't enough controversy before is fixed by the editor.

E.

Over all I think the editor did quite a good job improving already developed wikipedia article. The editor's edits greatly improved the neutrality of this article, filling up the gaps about the concerns over the CCS technology. I think the author could improve his work by changing the subtitle "carbon emission status-quo" under section "Society and culture", improves the clarity of the structure.