User:BestofLAandBay/Regenerative agriculture/Jumanaabdelgadir Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BestofLAandBay


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

- I don't see bold text updated in lead section so I'm assuming there is no updates

Content

- Very relevant information to sector

- Information is more historical, so I think that there are less up-to-date facts

- All content belongs

- Addresses perspective of framer groups in Argentina, a underrepresented perspective

Tone/Balance

- Info seems unbiased to me

- Addresses both perspectives of pros of regen.agric. and cons

- Does not attempt to sway reader

Sources/References

- Not all content is backed up by source. Many claims are unsourced

- Not enough sources used in proportion to information added

- One current source, but not thorough enough to derive all added information

- Only one source, no diverse perspective of authors

- More peer-reviewed sources needed

- Try linking source to citation

Organization

- Well written and clear content

- No clear spelling or grammatical errors, except terms like "bioeconomy" might need a dash in the middle (ex: "bio-economy")

- Well organized sections that add to overall article, and additions are relevant and organize article more

- Helps reflect major points of article well

Overall

- Additions improve content of article and quality

- Strengths is the historical information added

- Improvements: add many more sources and citations for unbacked claims, and make sure they're peer reviewed