User talk:Editor Meg/National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska

Peer Review 2
So sorry for the delay but I just published my comments for your edits and I hope you find them useful! Daheunlee (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review
A. Neutral Voice
 * 1) Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice. "The community of Nuiqsut, which is majority Iñupiat, has found oil extraction hinders their subsistence practices." I think the fact you include that it's their own finding is important for the neutrality. "Numerous Iñupiat members have voiced support for the Willow Project because, it creates many jobs and a source of revenue. Doreen Leavitt, Director of Natural Resources for Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope describes the Willow Project as an economic “lifeline” for North Slope communities. Opponents counterargue that the economic benefits will only be viable in the short-term while the environmental consequences will be long-term." I think you present the 2 sides of this issue well and in an unbiased manner.
 * 2) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone. "The project approval came after Biden established he would not allow more drilling on federal lands, making some supporters angry, while others had been pushing for the project’s approval.", I think characterizing the dissenters as angry might be somewhat non-neutral, I would maybe say something more like "receiving criticism from supporters".

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) 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? "On March 13, 2023 the Biden Administration approved the Willow Project", is very similar to the source phrasing of: "On March 13, the Biden administration approved one of the largest oil developments on federal land". I might try to restructure the sentence to something more like "The Willow project was approved by the Biden Administration on March 13, 2023".

C. Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written. "Native Alaskan communities reside on the North Slope and are impacted by both the effects of past drilling projects and the threat of future projects."
 * 2) Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying. "This development will occur in the Arctic tundra and wetland." - I think occur isn't the right word here, maybe "will be placed" or "is to be constructed" "Debates over whether to welcome oil development into the community or not have caused divide." The "to welcome oil development into the community" is to long of a clause that it makes the "whether -- or not" structure hard to follow. Maybe something like "Debates on the possibility of introducing oil development into the community has caused a divide between some communities."
 * 3) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication. "Impacting polar bears by causing them to abandon their young before they are old enough to survive." I think using 'impacting' is somewhat redundant here, I think you could just say "Causing polar bears to abandon their young before they are old enough to survive on their own." instead. "Numerous Iñupiat members have voiced support for the Willow Project because, it creates many jobs and a source of revenue." I think the comma after "because" is unnecessary. "Polar Bears are threatened species under the Endangered Species Act so disruptions to their populations are carefully considered during environmental assessments." "Bears" should not be capitalized her from what I can tell.

D. Rubric


 * 1) Review the rubric for the Wikipedia project final draft (download here). Write 1-2 sentences of feedback for each section, summarizing what (if anything) the author could do to improve in that area. (You do not need to assign points or note what category of the rubric you think they fall into, unless you think it would be helpful.) Lead Section: Lead states the section scope and content well, summarizing the points covered later on in the section. Article: Good structuring and organization, content is presented unbiased and neutral for the most part, content covers a good section of information to serve the purpose of Wikipedia. No images but I don't think any are necessary to help understanding. References: Plenty of citations throughout, almost every single sentence added is cited to an outside source. A fair mix of academic and journalistic sources. All references are complete with necessary information to find the source. Existing Article: Added relevant context and points that are talked about later in article addition. The new section is a new area untouched for the subject.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well? I think your greatest strength is your number and quality of citations and references. Very few sentences (if any) will leave someone guessing where the information came from.
 * 2) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft? I think that some of your sentences have a hard to follow structure or use too much of a passive voice which, if fixed, will make your project really well done.
 * 3) Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.  I think the rest of the review template covers all my thoughts. Overall I think you've done really well.

UWgeographyEnjoyer (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)