User:Eisha Afzal/Effects of climate change/Bellaruby12 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Eisha Afzal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eisha%20Afzal/Effects_of_climate_change?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Effects of climate change

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead needs to be more concise because it does not precisely state where the information is going in the article. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topics. Within the

Content:

The content is relevant to the topic and is up to date. You can add the main article link under the title. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. Just as you made the subsection in the sandbox, you can do the same thing within the actual article. Before adding the content to the wiki page, say you will add what you will add through the talk page and wait 2-3 days before adding the content to the article.

Tone and Balance:

The content added is natural, and the viewpoints are not overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor one position or away from another. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

A reliable secondary source of information does not back up the new content. I can't help seeing if the source is current. I cannot just click on the source on the sandbox page. When using a source, make it so that the reader can click it, and it will bring them to the website instead of having to search up the article themselves and see if it's the same source. Two different authors wrote the source. When I search for the source, I can only look at the abstract page. Therefore, I cannot see if the content is what the cited source says. There are better sources available for this content.

Organization:

The content is well written, but the content does have some spelling errors and grammatical errors. The content is well organized in reflecting the significant points of the topic, but the flow of where the points are going could be more precise and concise.

Images and Media

You could add some graphs or pictures about the context.