User:Tieot/African carbon market/Quasimodo1420 Peer Review

General info
Ty Mellish
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tieot/African carbon market:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The author already posted the revision to wikipedia so the talk page is essential the current version of the article:
 * African carbon market

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.)

Note from Ty: may strikethrough some points here once I am done editing them just to keep track for myself

A. Neutral Voice

Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice


 * The whole background section of the article contains strong neutral voicing.
 * The last paragraph of the "Controversy and Discourse" also contains good neutral voicing as the author describes the drawbacks and uncertainties    around estimates of carbon emission reductions compared to the mitigation projects undertaken by land developers.

Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone.


 * The sentence below could be reworked to perhaps be a bit more neutral due to the dismissive word choice:


 * This is then used to argue that carbon financing as a whole is just used to protect the interests of the fossil fuel-dependent industrial complex.
 * There may be another instance where similar language is used so be careful to avoid    this kind of phrasing.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism

Note any sentences/sections where you think the author might be struggling with accidental plagiarism/close paraphrasing. What strategies would you suggest for the author to help with this?


 * The first sentence in the "Purpose and Implementation" section, though a nice summary of an idea, could use a citation.
 * Also the last sentence in the "Background" section since it references data from a report, should also contain a citation.
 * I recommend looking to insert a citation whenever you are incorporating information that is summarized from one or more sources.

C. Readability

Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written.


 * The second and third sentences of "Purpose and Implementation" are particularly strong; they are clear, active voice and are in readable chunks.
 * The Background section is strongly written as it offer short concise bits of information that are important to understanding some of Africa's carbon    market history.

Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.


 * I re-read the first sentence in the last paragraph of "Controversy and "Discourse". Consider revising for clarity.

Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.


 * The article's lead sentence reads a little awkwardly because there are a couple of words missing.


 * The second sentence of the last paragraph in "Controversy and Discourse" is a bit of a run-on and has some grammatical disagreements, i.e. stating "this process" when numerous processes are referenced in the first part of the sentence (afforestation, reforestation, and carbon soil sequestration).
 * Before publishing, I would review the article to remove all passive voicing as this this prevalent through much of the article. This will make your    article flow a bit smoother and read more concisely.
 * Be careful of overusing the phrase "as a whole" as this is repeated multiple times in the "Controversy and Discourse" section.
 * Revise run-on sentences such as the last sentence in the first paragraph of "Purpose and Implementation", the second sentence in of the first paragraph in "Controversy and Discourse" and the first sentence in the last paragraph in the same section.

E. Final Questions/Considerations

What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well?


 * The author does a great job making a pretty substantial contribution to a very underdeveloped article. The contributions seem very well researched and reflects the effort taken to dive into the topic.

What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?


 * Review all the contributions to identify and revise run-on sentences, passive voice, repetitive word choices/phrasing, and casual tone shifts that weaken the article

Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.


 * Nothing to add; good luck with the final version!