User talk:BuLingReactor/Nuclear Power Plant

Peer Review 2

A. Neutral Voice

1. I think that you use the neutral phrase quite well in most of the additions you use here. Such as "In 2022, nuclear power plants generated 2545 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, a slight decrease from the 2653 TWh produced in 2021. Thirteen countries generated at least one-quarter of their electricity from nuclear sources." This is a perfect use of the neutral voice in your edits
2. "Russia demonstrates its nuclear industry's strength by leading in new reactor exports" I think this sentence could be changed to "Russia is the leading exporter of new reactors", this makes the sentence more neutral

B. Close Paraphrasing

1. Overall I do not see any issues with how the author paraphrased the sources listed in the edits. Everything seems to be cited correctly as well, which makes it easier. Overall, strong look on this part.

C. Readability

1. "As for March 2024, there are approximately 60 nuclear reactors for power plants being built worldwide, with a total capacity of 64GW, with an additional 110 in the planning stages." For example, this is a really good sentence structure and is clear to read. The sentence is not too long, and the information is presented clearly.
2. "An international coalition is advancing research and development on six Generation IV nuclear reactor technologies, focusing on fast neutron reactors, all operating at higher temperatures than current models and are geared toward hydrogen production." I think this sentence can be broken up into two separate sentences. It would make it clearer and easier for the reader to understand. Other than this kind of problem, everything else reads quite clearly.
3. Have not noticed any grammar or punctuation errors

D. Rubric

1. Introductory Lead Sentence: No changes to the lead, so no introductory lead sentence.
2. Summary: No summary because no edit to the lead section
3. Context: Overall, no changes to the lead section, so not applicable
4. Organization: Although the edits are split into multiple sections, it is still good as the different sections are regarding different subjects.
5. Content: The content is great, all new sections go very in-depth on each topic and give credible explanations
6. Balance: Overall the article edits seem balanced, although there are a couple of issues with a neutral tone sporadically, I would say that the balance is quite good
7. Tone: The tone is mostly good, couple issues with a neutral tone but not much
8. Images: No images added
9. Citations: Citations are great and back up points well, nothing more to add here
10. Sources: The sources look relevant, trustworthy, and relatively new
11. Completeness: References are correctly referenced, and they are quite easy to track down.
12. New sections: New sections are clear and do not step onto any current sections
13. Re-organization: Good, nothing to add here
14. Gaps: Yes the key content gaps have been filled
15. Smaller additions: There are no additions to other sections of the article if I have seen it correctly

E. Final Questions/Considerations:

1. I think the content presented by the author is excellent. All the sections go in-depth on addressing the content gaps identified and have relevant sources to back them up.
2. I think looking at sentence structure and breaking up a couple of long sentences could be useful. Maybe also edit the lead section if the author finds it necessary.

NickleJac (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)