User:AdamTski/Sustainable energy/Funmi.Ajani 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): AdamTski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AdamTski/sandbox

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? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead was updated and it provides clear information about Energy Conservation. The lead provided a clear introduction to specifically focus on energy conservation. Overall, the lead was clear and helped introduce the topic and provide more information.

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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes/no

Content evaluation
The content added to this topic is relevant and up-to-date. The content dos not miss anything and does not add anything that does not relate to the topic. This topic does address the Wikipedia equity gap however it does not address historically underrepresented populations but it does address climate change which is an underrepresented topic at times.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? it is not biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? it is neither overrepresented or underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it has a neutral and informative voice

Tone and balance evaluation
The authors tone in the draft is informative and neutral, the author does not intend to persuade but rather inform the reader about energy conservation. The information in this topic does seems overrepresented but it allows for the reader to understand a lot more. Moreover, there is not bias presented in the author tone which allows for this draft to be reliable.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The secondary sources used were reliable and current. The source were slightly diverse but mostly government and academic journal websites were used. Lastly, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The organization of this topic was clear, concise and cohesive. There is no grammatical errors in this draft. The paraghrap were broken up into different section and the section focused and connect to the overall article. Lastly, the paragraph was well organized, very informative and easy to understand.

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?

Images and media evaluation
In this draft there aren't any images or media provided.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content in this section has improved since the original article and it was more cohesive The strengths in this article is that there's a neutral voice with more information provided for the reader. The author also provided more thorough details and used very reliable source so it easier for the reader to understand and trust. However, ways to improve this content is possible deleting the first paragraph since it is not necessary and the reader is able to see what the author change from the original article. I may also suggest providing an image so the reader is able to have a visual about Energy conservation.