User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean/Daniella242424 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Klc2019
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• Climate change in the Caribbean

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?
• Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Yes, articles from the last 10 years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Climate change is usually a topic that is slightly opinionated, but it is pretty neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Yes, sources are provided.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Yes, the sources also appear to bee from reliable sources.
• Are the sources current?
• Yes, they are all from the past 10 years, but there is newer research available that could be used as well.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Yes, headings are provided to tell where the information belongs.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes, it is sectioned and has headings to let the reader know what part of the article it would be added to.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
• Yes
• 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?
• I think so, the original article is quite short. The content added gives the article additional information that can improve it overall.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• It comes from reliable sources, and follows all of wikipedias guidelines. It is arranged in a way that is easy to follow and is neutral.
• How can the content added be improved?
• Provide statistics or examples.