User talk:Maxwynn/Household energy insecurity

Peer Review #2 by Hailie Monkarsh
A. Neutral Voice
 * 1) Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice.
 * 2) “Factors that can affect energy insecurity include income level, governance quality, trade openness, and foreign direct investment.”
 * 3) “While energy insecurity still focuses on energy access, it looks different in every country.”
 * 4) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone.
 * 5) I don’t see any major concerns regarding the neutrality of the author’s writing.

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?
 * 2) There are quite a few places that don’t have a citation after certain claims, which I think would be beneficial to add so that there are no issues with plagiarism and to know where the information came from if someone wants to learn more. For example, in the Health Effects section, the sentence “energy is considered a basic necessity as it allows for access to heating, lighting, and cooling” should have a citation after it. I would recommend reading through it again and adding citations after claims such as that one to make sure information is being properly cited.

C. Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written.
 * 2) In the personal behavior section, the sentence you added is very strong in my opinion. I like how you added the “heat or eat” dilemma to describe the sacrifices some families have to make.
 * 3) I also think the sentence “While energy insecurity still focuses on energy access, it looks different in every country” is strong. It points out that household energy insecurity does not look the same in every country, especially when someone is comparing a developed country to a developing country.
 * 4) Another sentence I think is well written is the first sentence of the U.S. sociodemographics section because it is important to address socioeconomic factors that are common among households experiencing energy insecurity.
 * 5)  Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.
 * 6) I had to read this sentence a couple of times because it felt a little wordy: “Growing and urbanizing countries or regions, for example, certain countries in Asia, are at a rapid increase in demand for energy which causes an increase in energy insecurity.” I would suggest simplifying the language to make your point more clear.
 * 7) Another sentence I had to read a couple of times was: “One alternative to heating and cooking as a result of energy insecurity, common in developing countries, is burning solid fuels.” Again, I suggest simplifying the sentence structure and wording to make your point more clear.
 * 8) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.
 * 9) I noticed there are a few places where you say “we” which I suggest changing to avoid writing in the first person.
 * 10) Add a hyphen and capitalize Sahran so that it looks like this “sub-Saharan African countries” in the second paragraph under household energy insecurity in developing countries
 * 11) Also, capitalize “Developing Countries” in the title of the section
 * 12) I would suggest spelling out United States instead of saying “US”
 * 13) Add comma before “cooking” in first sentence of health effects

D. Rubric


 * 1) Review the rubric for the Wikipedia project final draft. 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.)
 * 2) Lead Section: I’m not sure how this applies since you are adding new sections to the article. You could add a sentence in the lead section of the article about how household energy insecurity varies country by country since that is a major point fo your contribution that is not already included in the lead section.
 * 3) Article: The organization is clear and the section titles make sense. The tone is neutral and information is well balanced in regards to what was covered within the article to get a basic understanding of household energy insecurity while providing references for background information. I don’t think an image is necessary for this article. One recommendation I have is editing some of the sentences I noted above to improve the wordiness of some sentences to make your point clearer.
 * 4) References: There are quite a few statements that should have a reference supporting the claim. The sources that have been selected are relevant and provide background information.
 * 5) Existing Article: The sections that are going to be added make sense and are well organized based on what sections already exist in the article. One section I am not sure about is health effects being added to contributing factors because it seems more like effects of household energy insecurity. You could put the health effects section under impacts and mitigation since it mentions illnesses there.

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?
 * 2) I think the conciseness of the information was presented very well. There are no filler words or irrelevant information, and the tone of the article is very neutral.
 * 3) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?
 * 4) I would recommend reading everything out loud to make sure that it is not too wordy or confusing for the reader. There are a few sentences that could be simplified, and I think reading it out loud will showcase any areas that feel too wordy.
 * 5) Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.
 * 6) I think this is very well written and the original article had a lot of gaps which I think the author addressed in their additions.

Cyclegirl22 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)