User:Redpoppys/Environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes/Dcp513420 Peer Review

General info
Redpoppys
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Redpoppys/Environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead

 * Add introductory sentence that describes the article's topic; like "Disposable vapes have been a growing issue within todays society, a significant concern has been the environmental impacts associated with this product."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, include this before the background!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Add lead.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The background had too much non-relevant because there are wiki pages on vapes already, however the rest of the article looks good relevance-wise.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? slightly too much background on this product, focus more on the environmental impacts instead of the growing social problems associated with vapes. But it looks good, I would only shorten it a little.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Good topic! It is not historically underrepresented because it is a new problem, but it is new!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is a little anti-vape, but I don't know how I would make this more neutral because the environmental impacts are only negative. Good job addressing the recycling programs in a neutral way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not heavily, however this article does come across as don't vape because of the environmental impacts. I would possibly lean heavier into the science of the environmental risks, and less into the societal statistics as they come across more bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Personally, I would add more on the environmental pollution and carbon footprint sections and less on the first two subsections of environmental risks.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information ? Yes, I would try to find more scientific or journal information (but I get its hard because this is such a new topic) and less like random newspapers.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, however sources are more bias news articles, which causes the reader to make this article seem less neutral.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Less so, they are more short news articles. Find scientific journals or more hard data on environmental impacts.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, very current!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Somewhat, I would find less anti-smoking sources and even possibly get information from vape companies to see if they are publishing the same or similar statistics.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Get more science backed sources and less bias ones. The article from the association for nonsmokers is particularly concerning.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes! Good writing, I found it was hard to read and follow the first two sections of environmental impacts because they seemed more broad and longer, I would split them both into two sections, making four total.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some things I would change to improve writing: Get rid of "There is also" and change to "Additionally," in the last sentence of Electronic Waste. "Many disposable vapes also get their nicotine concentration from tobacco plants, leading to deforestation of ecosystems so more tobacco can be grown, harvested, and manufactured." Split into two sentences at the so, or change to better phrase like "in order to grow, harvest, and manufacture more tobacco"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but definitely split first two into four.

For New Articles Only

 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes!
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not very exhaustive, I would for sure find a wider range of of sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No I would definitely link to lithium ion batteries, disposable vapes, e-waste, EV batteries, tobacco plants, World Health Organization, Green Wings Project, environmental footprint, and anything else someone with no background would ask wat is that.