User:Angela.sanchez207/Sustainable habitat/Carla R2D2 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)  I am working in the draft article of Angela Sanchez
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sustainable habitat

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 is the same from the original article, so both describe the topic of the article concisely and clearly. It also includes an introduction about what the readers will see further in the article. It has a lot of description and explains shortly some subjects that could appear below to develop and if they do, it would have been more complete. The lead includes great information, but is not presented in the article (content). Following the needs of the lead, it says that it needs more citations and it also specifies where.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is up-to-date and has a lot of links or hyperlinks. Nothing seems missing or has an equity gap. Now, the lead shows us such great introduction and thrills the readers about what will be the content, and then those hopes fade when we see the overview. The themes that could be in the content of this great topic could be, why is so important the sustainable habitat, what have the "man" done to the habitat, maybe about the pollution and the different types of it, examples of other sustainable habitats (like Eco-village, Eco-city and Eco-industries, among others), how does it affect or help the economy, how is this theme affecting other countries, what are they doing, or search if there are any movements against or with them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  Maybe
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not exactly
 * 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? It seems like it, but it just needs citations.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone could be neutral because it is informing and giving short descriptions. But the readers could feel that the content might not be neutral because it doesn't has citations. There are parts where it needs it. For example: or be produced under the influence of man.[citation needed] or  designed by human intelligence will mimic nature, if it is to be successful. These parts from the article (and there are more), might confuse us about the tone and balance. I am sure that neither my peer or the other editor want to persuade us in favor of a position, it just needs a citation.

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 article sustain in just three sources, and in two of them, it appeared up an alert that it is not secure. The three references works and in non of them appears the author or authors. On the other hand, the links (hyperlinks) work and they are current, approximately 8 of them were last edited on October and 4 in August. I think maybe the article needs more sources to add. The references are just a few, and the topic is very broad (as we could see at the lead). I attached some links to give my peer more ideas ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301891799_Sustainable_Habitat_A_Green_Approach, https://imprint-india.org/domains/sustainable-habitat).

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? Yes, but specially the lead.  The content doesn't have much grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It still doesn't has a table of contents because it is very concise.

Organization evaluation
About the organization of the content, it is very, very concise. But it could be fixed by adding the themes that the lead already gives, or add different information (but then the lead must present a short abstract/summary of the new information). In the table of contents it could be added a section for the organisms that are from many biomes (as said in the lead), also below that section, it could be added information about the complex array of organisms, their physical resources and functions (also in the lead). Another section could be about the green buildings or environmental planning. That could further lead to the History of green buildings involving the energy conservation or sustainable transport.

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
My peer didn't added images or media, neither did the editor of the original article. Maybe that could be the next project of my classmate, if the time is enough, some images will make the article live longer.

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?  Citations, citations, citations and references.

Overall evaluation
What is added in the content (the Overview) about eco-friendly was a great start to keep develop. Of course, it must be taken calmly or it might sound like a persuasion, is up to the readers to decide. Wherever that information was taken from, it should be cited and added to the references. That will improve more the article, and also search more references to keep up with the up-to-date streak. This article takes a lot of work since it's a stub, I really admire my classmate, she is very brave. I'm excited to see how my peer will continue to contribute to this great article.