User:AzzamJahangiri/Canopy (biology)/Aishafozdar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

azzamjahangiri


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AzzamJahangiri/Canopy_%28biology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Canopy (biology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead section of this article is introduced with the definition of the article’s topic. While it is very concise and does a clear job of describing the central topic, I believe this section would further benefit from an update to reflect the new content that was added by my peer. For example, as my peer goes into detail about forest canopy ecology, specifically talking about species diversity and climate regulation, incorporating this into the lead section would allow readers to have a clear understanding of what the article is about without actually having to read it. By doing this, the lead section would then also incorporate the major sections of the article, as this is another missing factor. Overall, I believe this lead section does a good job of defining and introducing the central topic without making it overly wordy or adding unrelated information.

Content

After evaluating the content my peer added, I believe it is relevant to the topic. For example, the added section discusses the specific type of canopy - the forest canopy. It also discusses the various ways forest canopies contribute to the environment. While this content is useful and provides a better understanding of the article’s central topic, the use of more up-to-date sources would be beneficial. For example, my peer uses a source from 2004 to address the adversities that come with the destruction of forest canopies. Because this point is very significant to the topic, I would recommend finding a more up-to-date source to support this claim to ensure its credibility. In addition, newer sources would provide more perspectives on the associated claim, thus, making it more reliable. Other than that, I believe my peer did a great job providing relevant and important content for this topic.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the newly added content is neutral and there is no bias towards a specific position. My peer more-so used facts to provide insight on the topic, and each fact stated uses a source with a neutral viewpoint to further credit it. No specific claims were made and my peer did not use a persuasive tone when presenting their information. For example, when stating the ecology of a forest canopy, my peer presented factual information in a tone that did not side with any political viewpoints. In addition, when claiming that the destruction of forest canopies is detrimental to the environment, my peer did this unbiasedly by discussing how the environment is at risk rather than convincing the reader. Overall, the added content was representative of the topic and was presented in a way where there was no heavy bias towards a viewpoint.

Sources and References

My peer utilized reliable sources when backing up the added content. To begin, each reference used had a working link. When going through these links, I found that the sources were peer-reviewed journals and books, meaning my peer was drawing information from valid documents. I also found that the claims made in the article were accurately reflective of these sources. All the sources provided information on canopies, which is the central topic of the article.

While some of the sources used are reliable and up-to-date, a few were from the early 2000s. Using out-of-date sources could cause credibility issues, and therefore, I would recommend searching for newer sources that make the same claims or have the same context. I would also suggest broadening the types of references used so that historically marginalized individuals are included. Overall, the added content is credible and backed up by reliable sources.