User talk:MargoBP1/Ecoflation/TriniPapi Peer Review

The article was very clear, concise and well written. It benefitted from having a great structure, with clearly defined sections and subheadings that made it easy to follow and allowed for any information required to be very quickly and efficiently attained. The article was well balanced, focusing equally on the various aspects of ecoflation without delving too heavily into any specific section.

Perhaps an area of improvement would be the lead, which would benefit from a short sentence or two clearly summarizing the contents of the 3 major sections. This isn't fully necessary but would give the reader a clearer grasp of the entire article if they decided to read just the lead. Under the section Scarcity of Resources, the sentence "the price of water is bound to rise, some predict by 20% to 30% by 2050" makes a claim on behalf of an unnamed group through the use of the word "some". The sentence should perhaps be edited to remove this term and simply state the percentage, or otherwise attribute the source that stated it.

Overall, excellent article! The structure, clarity of writing and balance of each section is definitely something that I can draw on and apply to my article.

TriniPapi (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)