User:BryantTalbot7/Game fish/Mikemedina1 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): AdamTski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AdamTski/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: it was already a section that was accounted for
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: it is concise but still has enough detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: yes all the sources are from the last 5 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: it seems like it is in favor of sustainable energy, but since it is a good thing I don't see any way it could be more neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: it seems slightly biased towards being in favor of sustainable energy but it is understandable since there is really no negative side to it
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: I wouldn't say it persuades the audience but it does praise energy conservation

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: yes
 * Are the sources current?: yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: yes they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: not that I saw
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: yes I think so

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: n/a
 * Are images well-captioned?: n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: n/a

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?: yes I think so
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: it explains energy conservation more in depth
 * How can the content added be improved?: I think it could be lengthened and go into more detail about each topic that was brought uo

==== Overall evaluation: very good start to the intro. everything seemed reliable and very easy to read and understand. the only thing I would suggest would be to go into more detail and lengthen the section for readers but other than that it is really good. ====