Nicely done. You make your case directly. You lay out the facts and you present your analysis of them. It's very clean, clear, and calm.

You don't come across as militant or hostile. You don't trigger disengagement from your narrative flow.

You stay "on point". No tangents, no distractions, no sideshows. Clear messaging from start to finish. Start at A and move through B, C, D E, and end at F.

That's hard to do. It's always sooooo tempting to throw something else in. Excellent discipline on your part.

It's a good piece.

Who is your audience?

Who specifically are you targeting to read this piece?

That’s not totally clear for me after reading the piece. It should be. It always should be.

You are trying to hook someone into reading this. You need a better "hook" for the opening sentence. When I am doing Climate Evangelism I start with "a simple question".

That's how cultists approach strangers. You ask a question. What's the harm in that?

If they answer, then you have a dialog. With an article your words have to carry your side of the conversation. So, you have to control the narrative. You have to control the journey your reader is taking.

You are getting them to reach the conclusion you want "all by themselves" by guiding them with your words. You are writing an Epistle. You are trying to convert someone.

It's tough. If it was easy anyone could do it.

Muhammad's, Buddha's, Jesus's, and Moses's are rare.

But there are techniques and tricks to leverage what you can do. Study Evangelical and Cultic recruitment techniques. You will be a stronger more powerful writer. They do what works, use it.

That being said, this is a very good article. It needs a stronger finish.

You should build to the finish and have your final points crash onto the readers "opened" mind. Even if they are not convinced, you want to plant seeds.

As it stands, your ending seems muddled and somewhat uncertain. You are hitting too many points here.

Hammer home your main message.

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh or mansplaining things you already know. That's my critique.