User:Yanakigel1/Hemp/Rumrunner3210 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yanakigel1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Yanakigel1/Hemp


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hemp

Evaluate the drafted changes
- Building Materials section has spelling and grammar issues introduced by the edits. In addition to this I found the sentence structure to be pretty choppy in general.

- A large number of sentences start with "it", which makes reading the article feel very choppy. (" Its flexibility and toughness during compression allows it to be easily implemented within structural framing systems. It could also be easily adjusted to different sizes and shapes by being cut during the installation process. It does not settle and therefore avoids cavity development, lowering its need of maintenance.")

-Lead has not been updated to reflect the changes, I don't really think it needs to be updated though.

Tone and Balance
The section on sustainability mentions "This is because cannabis processing is done mechanically without any harmful effects to the environment." This seems fairly biased since it's likely that somewhere in the processing of the fibers there is likely some harm done to the environment, consider changing this to minimal.

"Unlike many other insulants such as fiberglass insulation, hemp insulation is naturally lightweight and non toxic." - I would remove the comparison to other building products and stick to the facts about hemp, since it reflects bias.

There are large sections of text without citations. (unless the citation comes from the source at the end of the block (Sustainability section, Hemp Insulation Section).

Sources and References
The sources used are fairly recent and seem to be of good quality, there was one that I wasn't able to check out since it was written in Czech. Sections like the one on sustainability have large sections of text that aren't cited (unless the entire section is taken from the one source).

Organization
The article is well organized and the categories are fairly clear, although, there are some spelling and grammar issues present. (couple of cases where it should be it's instead of its)

Talk Page
The talk page was pretty sparse and mainly had one large edit that was well commented. Would suggest making several smaller edits and commenting them so that it's easier to track in version control.

Overall Impressions
The sources seemed to be of a good quality and the article for the most part maintained a neutral tone; However, there are fairly large sections that need to be rewritten to make them more readable. I thought that the article was structured well and I have no real suggestions for how to improve it. I found some statements that were similar to: "Hemp has low embodied energy compared to most building construction materials overflowing the market today." which contain loaded language and seem to undermine the overall neutrality of the article.