User talk:Kittodk/Community wind energy

Peer Review 2
A. Neutral Voice


 * 1) Sentence where the author has a strong neutral voice:
 * 2) “​​Categorizing community wind energy in a social scope can be seen as strong or weak based on contextual and motivational factors, with farm forms that prioritize normative and social motivations, producing local benefits, and scaling to local energy demand (Warlenius et al., 2023)”
 * 3) Overall there is a strong neutral voice.
 * 4) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone:
 * 5) The last paragraph flows really well, but it comes off as a slight argument for community wind energy.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) I don’t think there is any accidental plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

C. Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written:
 * 2) “Society's role in Community wind energy is multifaceted and often debated. Two dimensions—process (who develops and runs the project) and outcome (how project outcomes are distributed socially and spatially)—typically define the ideal form as being both by and for local people. Categorizing community wind energy in a social scope can be seen as strong or weak based on contextual and motivational factors, with farm forms that prioritize normative and social motivations, producing local benefits, and scaling to local energy demand (Warlenius et al., 2023)”--great first paragraph!
 * 3) Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.
 * 4) “Developing community wind energy faces barriers such as uncoordinated organizational structures, local authority decisions, and intricate planning requirements.”--need clarification on uncoordinated organizational structures.
 * 5) “Collaboration challenges arise because large companies require majority stakes in projects, necessitating creative financing models.”-- very well written but the last part of the sentence feels a little wordy.
 * 6) “Despite a desire for community involvement in the UK, for example, utilities' dominance in the Renewable Energy Transition development and government reliance on market-driven approaches have created skepticism among community energy change agents. (Nolden, 2013)”-- maybe reword or make into two sentences.
 * 7) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.
 * 8) “understanding factors encouraging participation.”-- maybe add a word in between factors and encouraging (factors which/that encourage participation)
 * 9) “Participation experiences and outcomes are not universally positive, and there are accessibility concerns, fearing that community wind energy may favor affluent communities or individuals, reflecting broader socio-economic and regional inequalities.”--strong wording but a lot of commas for one sentence.

D. Rubric


 * 1) Lead: Great lead sentence, sets the scene for the rest of the article. Everything in the lead is mentioned throughout the article.
 * 2) Article: Great organization and content. All of the content gap was covered/added in your edits. There are parts that seem like you are in favor of community wind energy (mentioned above), but I think you covered both sides well. Overall the tone is neutral, but some wording may be advanced/too wordy for a Wikipedia article. Very well written and great vocab words, but I sort of had a hard time with some sentences.
 * 3) References: Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference. Sources look great! I think you could benefit from more direct quotes in your article to balance out the sentences that are based off of inference or your analysis of a source.
 * 4) Existing article: The sections you added are very comprehensive. Key gaps are filled. I think you could delete the section before yours about the drought because there isn’t a source. It’s also worded kind of weirdly and compromises the flow of your great edits!

E. Final Questions/Considerations

Eswanger (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well?
 * 2) I would have a really difficult time maintaining a neutral tone if I were editing an article on social impacts–since it can be controversial. That being said, you did a great job of maintaining a neutral tone! Your article is very well rounded and well researched. Perfectly concise and overall very well written!
 * 3) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?
 * 4) Read your article out loud. You are a strong writer but a think making some sentences more blunt/simpler would strengthen your neutral tone. I also think you could add direct quotes to go into more detail on your claims/sources, but not necessary.