User:AlgalBloom34/Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Shancully 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? (AlgalBloom34 & Chloezampetti)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does not look like they added anything new but nothing new really needed to be added in the first place as the lead was very strong as it was.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, very concise and clear that allows the reader to understand
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No it is concise and provides the correct information. The only thing I am not a fan of is the sentence "both the spill and the cleanup efforts had effects on the environment". It is awkwardly placed and not sure of the relevance of that in that area since you already mentioned that it was an environmental disaster and it might be repetitive.

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?
 * No

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?
 * They have a lot of information on their topic but it is not overkill so I think it is the appropriate amount
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, has a very 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
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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 and it also blends in well with the language and sentence structure of the other editors before as well, which is very hard to do.
 * 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, they added more sub-topics and categories that allows the information before to be easily read and understandable than before so it added to the strength of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. I think though that the blue shell crab photo is a little unclear as it does not show a beforehand of the crab unaffected by the spill so there is not reference point and all we see is a picture of a crab.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they do not distract the reader and are placed in a manner that flows with the reading

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the content added provides more explanation and clarification into the details already brought up in the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It clearly lays out the content in a readable and understandable manner that enhance the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the article is a little lengthy so possibly to continue the good sub-structure you started so that the reader does not get bored with the content.