User:AvonnaPollard22/Psychological impact of climate change/PsychgirlTYTY Peer Review

General info
(Avonna Pollard)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:AvonnaPollard22/Psychological impact of climate change - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Psychological impact of climate change - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is updated to reflect the article's main topics by the editor. The article introduces the information in a clear and concise manner. The article breaks down the subplots of the topics. It prepares the reader for a greater understanding of the topic. My suggestion would go back and see if anything else can be added regardless of how well it fits now.

Content:

The content is up to date and of this century. It has information that is very diverse and can be tied to different viewports. There is no content that does not belong. The content does represent the theme very well and I appreciate the effort provided by the editor.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article is very neutral and included topics I find interesting. I like that the editor added Children, Mental Health, and other specific topics based on the main one. It made the tone more unique and engaging to the viewer. It catches the attention span of our generation. The generation that happens to like TikTok videos and shorts on YouTube.

'''Sources: The source material is reliable. It has new sources from this century and information that is pretty much new. It is a theme or concept that is very reliable. My only suggestion would to make sure they are secondary sources. The laws of Wiki Edu and our professor need us to be in line. Due to that fact, I know I have to make some edits to mine as well.'''

'''Overall Impressions: I liked this article. I feel that the editor did a great job. I would just check the standards, sources, and grammar, (even though I did not see a major issue there) to make sure the article stays in good shape like it already is.'''