User:Sabina Mahavni/Just Transition/Dalanlaughlin 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) - Sabina Mahavni
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sabina Mahavni/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I would say no.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

Overall, my peer has done a good job in making the lead more concise and organized. I would perhaps make sure your new section of 'Accomplishments' follows what the lead already explains or change the lead so it does.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes (but this is not peer's fault, there is too much disorganized information to fix)

Content evaluation

First section: Definition & Evolution

I'm not so sure that this #2 point for the first section is that well placed. This section is talking about the origins of the word, its initial representation in society, and how people are coming to understand it. This transition information you are providing is oddly specific and does not necessarily speak for the representation of the word - it is more the definition of the word. I also think that you could move it to a lower area in this section. It seems that this entire section starts with the evolution and more ends with the definition. However, if you were to keep it in that area, I would still provide a better transition from the last point about how the impact needs to be spread equally to the definition of the eight bodies that make it up.

Second section: Broadening Use

I am a bit confused on how your added sentence is in any way correlated with the last part of the sentence before it. I am also wondering if you could provide something a bit more specific because it does say in the sentence before how Just Transition is transitioning towards a low carbon and climate-resilient economy. I like how you are including sustainable economic and employment opportunities but maybe you could just combine it with the sentence above and take out the digitalization part?

Added section: Accomplishments

I think this section is a great addition the article. I personally wanted to know more about how this framework has been working so I thought it was a great addition. I also think the information you added is great.

Edits already made in earlier assignments

Think these edits are great. I would just be careful with hyperlinking to the Paris agreement because that could create bias. However, I just checked and it seems that the hyperlink is not there.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not in regards to peer's work
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

Your edits seem to keep a neutral tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Good job with the sources.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

I would make sure to follow whatever capitalization is appropriate for the word 'Just Transition'.

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 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? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? Makes it more organized, more concise, and informational
• How can the content added be improved? Better transitions, more specificity if possible

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think your contributions are really strong and helpful for this what seems a bit disorganized article. I would just make sure to make sure transitions are smooth as well as follow the point before. There are obviously a lot of flaws with this article, including in my opinion the section title "Definition & Evolution" but you did a really nice job in making it easier to understand and understandable.