Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

GibbsOtis

Link to draft you're reviewing

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

A. Neutral Voice

1. “The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has a special exemption preventing indigenous groups from protecting their water sources with quality standards” and “A spatial analysis of the demographics of residents around fracking sites found that median incomes around wells in Pennsylvania were substantially lower” were both very strong sentences that I feel were really good additions to the existing text in the article.
2. Within the community impacts section, the author matches the energy of the already existing content in the article. Much of the content within this section lists the negative impacts of fracking on nearby communities. My suggestion might be to try and cover more sides or this section regarding who, if anyone, benefits from fracking in the community - just to be able to cover all the bases when it comes to claiming that the impacts felt on a community level outweigh any positive outcome results due to fracking. Additionally, while I agree with this statement; “When looking at the regulations of fracking as an issue of land rights, one must consider the historic injustices against Native Americans, and how these disproportionate impacts may still be perpetuated today” it might come off as argumentative to readers and I would suggest posing a question on the talk page of this article to see if any other editors might have something to say about this statement and its inclusion within this article.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism

1. Personally, I don't see any parts of the author's edits that sound plagiarized or closely paraphrased. On the contrary, much of it seems written by themselves due to the consistent tone of voice throughout the author’s edits, their chosen focus within this article, and consistent attention to the impacts on disadvantaged communities without the protections of resources that could otherwise be used as a barrier against the act of fracking.

C. Readability

1. I really appreciated the last section within the community impacts section partly due to the fact that it was a completely new section being added by the author and also due to how relevant and seamlessly it fit within the rest of the content in the section.
2. Largely due to the fact that many organizations have been historically involved in the exploitation of tribal lands I had to re read edits in the policy and science section in order to get them all in order - but I do believe its important to mention these organizations(BLM, RCRA, USFS, etc.)
3. None!

D. Rubric

1. Introductory sentence: There was no introductory sentence edit, rather more of a focus on certain sections within the main article.
2. Summary: The author summarizes certain aspects of fracking in communities but also gives specific examples.
3. Context: All included edits are related and relevant in context to the sections.
4. Organization: There are clear subheadings in the author's edits and is easy to follow.
5. Content: All content is paired with relevant sources.
6. Balance: One aspect that I might point to in terms of the balance of content and edits is that it is heavily leaning towards the negative impacts of fracking which could be due to what sections the author is choosing to edit in.
7. Tone: The tone is very well established throughout the article although the author might benefit from being more neutral when presenting their own ideas of how fracking impacts communities.
8. Images: No images were included in the author’s edits.
9. Citations: Every statement is associated with a citation.
10. Sources: All the sources fit within the content of the edits - but again, the majority of them adopt a very negative view of fracking while it aligns with the authors edits, is something to be cautious of as a neutral author on wikipedia.
11. Completeness: Most citations are fully complete.
12. New Section: Does not add any new sections in the author's edits.
13. Re-Organization: The edits are organized and logical.
14. Gaps: The key gaps within the article have been filled by the additional edits by the author within the focused on sections. Information within the section has been expanded upon and provides a more in depth analysis of fracking on communities.
15. Smaller Additions: The sections being focused on by the author are critical aspects within the main article so I believe that the edits are well placed.

E. Final Questions/Considerations

1. I think the edits within the chosen sections match the tone and themes of the content very well. The author’s edits were added in seamlessly and are easy to read. There is little left to wonder.
2. As mentioned above, the edits lean heavily into being against fracking. Again, not that I disagree with any of the additional edits and statements by the author, I think the neutrality we are supposed to be practicing while editing our Wikipedia articles could be referenced to when continuing on with the author’s edits.
3. Good job Ben!