User:ESenvironment/Impacts of tourism in Kodagu district/Jaimee.Pal Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?
ESenvironment

Link to draft you're reviewing

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESenvironment/Impacts_of_tourism_in_Kodagu_district?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * (As requested, this review is only for the 'Lead', 'Background' and 'Environmental Impacts' sections as the rest is still being worked on.)
 * (As requested, this review is only for the 'Lead', 'Background' and 'Environmental Impacts' sections as the rest is still being worked on.)

Lead
+ Includes a clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic

+ Includes a brief outline of the article's main sections

+ Good length - not too detailed so that the reader would get bogged down, but contains enough detail so that we know what to expect in the article

◇ Maybe reduce the number of references in this section? Wiki says Leads should not contain too many, so if the references will be referred to again in the body you might be able to cut them out of the intro

Content
+ Content is relevant and up-to-date

◇ In 'Environmental Impacts' section, maybe consider making two separate paragraphs for positive and negative impacts as the current layout is confusing - it goes from 'tourism brings financial support' to 'tourism is bad'

+ Topic fills a gap as existing article on Kodagu district do not mention the impacts of tourism, only popular tourist locations

Tone and balance
+ Tone is neutral and unbiased

+ Facts are presented without attempting to sway the reader

Sources and references
+ A lot of the new info is backup up by two or more references

+ References are mostly from credible journals or statistics from government departments

+ Content accurately reflects info from the cited sources

+ Sources are thorough and there are many different authors, showing the topic has been well-researched and doesn't just rely on one or two sources of info

+ Links all seem to work

Organization
+ Content is fairly well written

◇ Some transitions between sentences could use another look-over (eg. in the Lead, second paragraph, it doesn't quite flow)

+ Content is clear and easy to read, with language that makes sense

+ No spelling errors that I could see

+ Article breakdown is well organized and order makes sense

Overall the only things I would improve are completeness of info (more specific examples in each section, and finished the other sections) and improving transitions between sentences so the flow is more logical.

'''I can look it over again when you're finished if you want any more feedback, but it's looking good so far! :)'''