User:Howets/Kivalina, Alaska/Monica.Keim 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? Howets
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Howets/Kivalina, Alaska

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, only one part of one section is briefly mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Sea-level rise is not explicitly mentioned again within the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Starts out concise but is lacking information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as far as I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm sure there is still more to add, but it seems like it is coming along nicely!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, there are many topics in this article that discuss an Alaskan Indigenous community and issues they are facing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The Red Dog Mine edit seems a little biased. It may be worth rewording the ending.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In this case ^ Red Dog Mine's viewpoint seems underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Slightly, yes.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? News articles are probably the most available literature on this topic, so I would say yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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

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


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

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? NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? NA
 * 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? NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More context as to the environmental issues that the community is facing and insight into recent events relevant to them.
 * How can the content added be improved? It reads to be slightly leaning in favor of the community being targeted or unfairly treated. It is hard to see the context of both sides without assuming they are simply the victim - although I know it's likely not that simple.