User:Emilyfisher0/Natural Disaster/Ahmyers10 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) Emilyfisher0
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Emilyfisher0/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Not creating a new article - not applicable.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
'Both the new section you are creating and the additions you are making to the other section are very strong! They seem to be adding a very valuable perspective on the social and economic aspects of natural disasters in a fairly analytical and detailed way. The analysis is very good but if I was to add one thing, I would say maybe consider including an example? This personally helped the understanding of my page so briefly discussing a certain area or time when a natural disaster did affect low income individuals disproportionately (Hurricane Katrina for example). Again, just a suggestion - content is also great without.'

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'In my opinion the content appears to be neutral. You did a good job of presenting it without bias (especially for a subject so easy to take a side on) and all parts seem to be represented equally. If anything, I think statistics from one example (like Katrina) would show that your ideas are not being argued but rather from a place of facticity (also unnecessary though).'

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'The second source seems slightly outdated, but for the most part fine. I would say the second part of your content is good but the first (new section) can use a few more citations - even though it seems somewhat redundant to keep citing the first source, better safe than sorry. I would also see if you could include one more source since there are only 2 for the entire draft.'

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
'The content is extremely well-written and easy to understand - sounds both academic and flows nicely within the paragraphs. I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors and I thought the sections fit the titles appropriately.'

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No media added - not applicable.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not creating a new article - not applicable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'You have a very strong addition to your wikipedia article - the only changes or improvements I would make are very minor! Overall I would focus on slight increase of citations and possibly using an example to support your research and findings but completely up to you! Good job!'