User talk:Apjil/sandbox

Peer review

Hello, I read your changes and additions to this page and i think that you wrote it well. I made the following suggestions based on personal understanding. I hope it helps you.

I think your structure has been rewritten and written very well. I should also pay attention to whether my page structure is reasonable
According to Shalor's suggestion, the news website may not be a reasonable reference source in some content. He said that

“news sources are often not the best possible sources for science related topics, as many of them tend to write reaction or opinion pieces to events or they can just summarize things they see in other media sources, which may not have done due diligence with fact checking”. However it's good to take World Resources Institute as reference source since it's a global research non-profit organization.

In section "Current Situation - Public Investigation", I think it may be helpful to add link or reference for the newly added contents. Same suggestion for the contents in "Agriculture" as you mentioned "severe damage caused by high temperature....."

Delikitty (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anant's Peer Review

Overall a good decision to work on the structure and using credible and factual sources of information . The % distributions of various countries could be presented in a tabular form to make it easier for the reader and makes it easier to compare . The statements published in 'The Economist' seems to be credible but the actual source of information ( where the economist got it's information ) is important to know and cite . Also some of the sentence structures could be improved to avoid redundancy such as ' Lastly, climate change could endanger human health by increasing the outbreaks and transmission of diseases such as diarrhoea, Cholera etc. 00:10, 16 April 2018‎ User:Anantvis