User:Emalone66/Acid rain/Aamarain Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the new content delves into more specifics and gives more details in regards to specific damages acid rain causes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a new topic described.
 * 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?
 * Concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it expands on previously mentioned points.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * I believe the article does expand on a topic that could be more represented and more well-known.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there is no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints are neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no favoritism.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the article accurately represents the sources' information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from 2021.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is no single author.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No.
 * 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, it was easy to follow.
 * 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, each section represents different points.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there is one photo that shows the damage of acid rain.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, but there is one spelling error.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the content added information that expanded on already said information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added was that the new information went into detail on previously mentioned topics.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The wording could be written in a way that makes the content flow easier.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emalone66


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emalone66/Acid_rain?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Acid rain

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)