User:Alvarezyusi/COVID-19 Impact on Climate Change/Rjaco036 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? Alvarezyusi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect the new content that was added by my peer. Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes Yusi's article on COVID-19 Impact on Climate Change. In Yusi's original sandbox, the lead does not have a brief description of the article's major sections; whereas the merged article does. The lead does not include Information that is not present throughout the article. I believe Yusi's original sandbox has a concise lead source; whereas the merged article os overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content that was added is relevant to the topic. All information based on air pollution, COVID-19, and climate change tied together. I believe, according to references and current news on COVID-19, that all content in this article is up-to-date. The only content that may be missing is how, statistically speaking, our climate was peaking at an all time high within terms of air pollution.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that was added to Yusi's original sandbox, was not neutral...there were some biased sentences that created a different tone throughout the article's content. I do not think there was a specific claim that "heavily" leaned toward a particular position. Most viewpoints were either overrepresented or neutral. The content that was added did not really try to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, but did try to inform the current affects.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
In both the original sandbox and the merged version, all of the content was backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources go into depth and elaborate on the topic that is cited throughout the literature. Most sources are current, although there are a few with further dates (going back to 2017), but they are informative. All of the in-site citations do work effectively.

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
All content is relatively easy to read, Yusi's original sandbox (before the merge) was well-written and clear. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors throughout her article. I feel that the original content was not as organized as the merged article. The original was just one big paragraph with a-lot of information.

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
Yusi's original sandbox had no images, although when going to an in-site citation, those pages had images. The merged article had a few images throughout and were well-captioned. I believe all of the images did adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations and were visually appealing.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The draft I reviewed was a "new article" but was merged with a similar article. The original article was not up to par with Wikipedia's notability requirements, although it did have plenty of sources, it was a bit biased and repetitive. The list of sources was not necessarily exhaustive but was broad enough. The sources did represent all available literature on the COVID-19 Impact on Climate Change. The original article did not follow any patterns and looked like plain writing. The article was merged with another so it is definitely more discoverable but also had several in-site citations leading back to the original piece.

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 article is more complete especially when the content is added based on the peer review. The strengths were that there is powerful build up and the article has several facts and statistics. The article can be improved by adding more personable stories of places like Florida where people and businesses, etc are impacted.