User:ShawnInnocent99/Environmental impact of the petroleum industry/TigerERTH4303 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:ShawnInnocent99


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ShawnInnocent99/Environmental impact of the petroleum industry
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Environmental impact of the petroleum industry

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Since this is a new subsection being added to an established page, lead comments cannot be made.
 * Remember to add this new subsection to the table of contents when it is added to the main page.
 * The term "produced water" is used throughout this paragraph, however it was never defined in this text. Suggest user link the first time use of "produced water" with the Produced Water Wikipedia page.
 * The first sentence of the paragraph utilizes discharges 3 times which doesn't flow very well when reading the sentence as a whole.
 * I would separate the intro statement into two sentences. The first saying PW discharges comes from petroleum discharges, and the second explaining how it "results in significant PAH discharges".
 * Furthermore, it might be in user's best interest to explain "how significant". Just saying "significant" doesn't say much as it can be significantly high or significantly low.


 * In the second sentence: "largest such event" does not describe to the reader what the event is, it is too ambiguous, what is the event?
 * Again the same issue with the first sentence, user is describing two statements in one sentence. Each sentence should only have one topic. suggests user to split up the sentence to two separate sentences. In fact the second sentence may not be necessary at all since its production was already described in the beginning sentence.
 * Remainder of the paragraph flowed nicely.
 * The subsection title is "Produced Water and drilling waste discharge" yet the section does not mention "drilling" even once apart from the title.
 * Content overall is relevant to the subject of the article and maintains neutrality throughout.
 * References are present:
 * For every statement (that isn't general information) there should be a reference at the end, even if it must be repeated. There is not one for composition of PW but there is for Formation water (which should also be blue linked).
 * One reference is in a foreign language so information cannot be verified.
 * citations are all relatively current.
 * Overall Pretty good, just rework those first two sentences and some other minor things. Should be a good addition to the established article.