User:Cattastic123/Abiotic stress/Brontyjn 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? Cattastic123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cattastic123/Abiotic stress

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? Could be made more concise / less wordy.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, very
 * 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, perhaps it could incorporate this into impacts on food production

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It could include other plants affected outside of agriculture.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

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? It could incorporate more sources from different parts of the world (or discussing different regions/areas)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Could be made a bit more clear, especially with certain phrasing that may be common for this topic but not for average reader.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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? NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? NA
 * 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? NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It uncovers more categories of information not included in the original article. With this it has the potential to address more content gaps among different populations impacted by abiotic stress.
 * How can the content added be improved? Can be improved by incorporating more sources with a wide range of diversity.

Overall evaluation
The article changes are structured very well, could expand on how the topic impacts different communities. Very good points with reliable sourcing. Could be a bit more specific and less wordy but overall the information added is valuable.