User:Howets/Kivalina, Alaska/Ziggy Marmot 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?
 * 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
Since this is a wikipage about a place, I like that it just jumps into the statistics of the area. 9 times out of 10 I wiki a location just for a basic detail: political representations, population, etc. The sentences that follow really get to the "meat" of Kivalina. It is right on the front lines of climate change. the lead in is concise and to the point.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
I think you did a nice job expanding on the environmental issues and "Kivalina in the media" of city. It came off as very balanced, and non-bias. The newly expanded sections included proper cites.

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
The tone was neutral, and didn't seem biased in any way. I thought the Environmental Issues section might be difficult to write without bias, but it came out well stated and neutral.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Lots of new sources to back up the expanded sections. It was a nice balance between journalism, government documentation and research articles.

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
Organization was good. The flow of which section followed which seemed logical and it seemed all the major points of an area where covered.

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 new images. Presuming the photo from before stays. All good. Though, maybe a map of where the new location site is? maybe.

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
n/a

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
Nice job expanding this article. I really likes the summaries of the large relevant environmental issues (Orange goo!? That is wild.). Kivalina seems to be a hot spot for tackling climate change related issues. I thought overall you did a really good job at remaining neutral on such hott(!) issues. Learned a lot about a city I only knew of.