User:Foxstronautilus/Climate risk insurance/Zcintas Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) User: Foxstronautilus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Foxstronautilus/Climate risk insurance
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Climate risk insurance
 * Climate risk insurance

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.)

Lead:

I thought the lead of this article was written quite well and held a very transparent tone throughout the writing. The lead so far provides a nice layout of the article and does not focus on too many things, instead it gives a broad generalization of the main topic of the article, climate risk insurance. I did find that in the second paragraph there was a sentence that seemed to discuss a theory which I think could be further validated with a source, or maybe I am reading it incorrectly and it is fine the way it is.

Content:

-The one source added to the sandbox article seems valid and aids the article through providing an idea to the readers on how to integrate climate risk insurance into a comprehensive climate risk management approach. The source was published in 2013 but is still relevant given how the context of the book still applies to climate insurance today. I think the content that is added into the article seems to bolster the overall discussion of the topic and nothing seems like it does not have a place. Additionally, I think the article does a good job of laying out how poor communities/ countries have been hurt by the high cost of climate insurance programs. It could provide more information to this portion of the article.

Tone and Balance:

As I stated earlier the overall tone of this article is very balanced and does not give any ideas to the reader that the author is leaning towards one side or the other. It is very objective. However, I think that since the author discusses how certain critics feel about the topic, then there should equally be a discussion of those that are in favor of the topic to give a bit of a more balanced outlook.

Sources and References:

-There was only one reference issued in this sandbox article but it seems like the article is not fully cited since there is no date, no page number where the information was found, and some of the authors are left out, but it is a valid and good one at that. However, I did have some trouble opening the full book to find more about where the editor got their information. I noticed that in the original article there is a few articles that could be changed or omitted, such as the "dw.com" article, since it seems like it is from a new source and may be biased and not fully credible. Also, there was another article that was in the original article that was an .edu cite but it seems to be a blog so it may not be fully credible and thus might need to be omitted from the article. Upon doing some digging about the topic I did find a interesting article published by "Science Magazine" that discusses why climate insurance is important for the coming years and might be a good source to look into. That article was also cited by 435 people so it seems credible despite being a magazine. Also I found another article published on nature.com that has been cited by 62 people and is written by credible authors.

Organization:

So far, this article is clear and concise, but it still has a lot of room to grow and become a very Informational article. The article so far only has a lead section and the body is yet to be fully developed. I think one good category to include is the type of climate insurance policies there are out there and also how they are implemented/ how costly are they and simply what they do.

Images and Media:

There are no images published yet but I think one image that could be good to add is perhaps an insurance policy document to give readers an idea of what one looks like.

Overall Impressions:

Overall I think this article is doing well at what it has provided so far and there are very minor errors and changes that I would suggest (which have been stated above). I think that this article is also very interesting and can be turned into something that is actually very informative and beneficial for readers. Climate insurance is something we all should probably start thinking about getting sooner or later because it may very well save our livelihoods if climate change is set to wreak as much havoc as it is projected. So having articles like this available for readers is truly paramount for them to understand what these documents are and the help they can provide.