User:Santana1998/Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition/Sustainabledevelopmentstudent Peer Review

General info
Santana1998
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Santana1998/Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The initial sentence does a good job explaining what the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Law is in a clear concise way.
 * Is the capitalization for the law correct?
 * Some of the language in the lead is suggestive/biased. While it is clear that the law has good intentions, by calling the commercial practices "unfair" comes across as opinionated.
 * The lead does a good job summarizing the law and its goals, but doesn't provide an outline/description of the major sections of the article.

Content


 * The part about how legislation gets passed through is slightly confusing/seems out of place.
 * Maybe it would be better if presented at the beginning as a set up for the process, but otherwise it doesn't tie directly to the topic.
 * I like the timeline because it does a good job at identifying each part of the build up for the law and is all the way up to date.
 * Capitalize Parliament.

Tone and Balance


 * For the most part, I think the content is neutral, but in some cases there are a lot of adjectives used that probably came from advocates of the law which makes sense, but it could be beneficial to acknowledge the downfalls of the law/people's complaints about it to make the tone more unbiased.
 * The viewpoint in favor of the law makes up the entire article, maybe include some counter points.

Sources and References


 * All of the sources seem to be reliable and well support the article.
 * I think if you were to add information from reliable sources about the potential consequences/downfalls it would improve the article and the validity of the sources because they come from multiple perspectives.

Organization


 * I think the organization of the article is decent.
 * I would maybe reorder the part about passing EU legislation through Parliament.
 * Could be at the beginning or maybe just part of the introduction. Having it as a whole section doesn't necessarily fit.
 * Not any spelling errors that I can see, but there are some places that may be missing capitalization such as Parliament and the name of the law.
 * The breakdown of the sections is good, but maybe break between the 2005 initiative and the 2011 initiative.

Images and Media


 * There aren't any images/media, but including some could be useful.

Overall Conclusion


 * Meets Wikipedia's notability requirements with sourcing, but could be strengthened with additional sources.
 * Long list of sources, but doesn't represent all viewpoints/available information.
 * The article is very good and informative, but some of the writing sounds like it may have been taken from/used direct synonyms from publications about the law. I think adjusting some of the language to reduce the sound of bias and potentially reordering/adjusting sections could really help the writing. The biggest thing I think is to add some counter points/downfalls of the law and impacts it could have on businesses because it would make the article stronger because it is more complete. Overall, it is good and with a few changes I think it could comprehensively address the topic.