User:Irishyseni/Energy development/SinghGEOG473 Peer Review

General info
User: Irishyseni
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Irishyseni/Energy development
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Energy development

Lead:
The lead has been vastly updated to reflect the changes made in the article. All the information that was updated within the article is referenced. All aforementioned content in the lead is summarized concisely to help the reader get a general gist of what is and what is not in this article coming forward. Another great sign of this being a strong lead is that most, if not, all of the content added has a separate reference/source so we know it is evenly distributed and mentioning all content added to the article.

Content:
The content is highly relevant to the topic as it expands on the current sub-section greatly. The content is very well detailed yet simple to comprehend. The information shared is also up-to-date. There is no content that is missing based upon what the lead mentions and the sources listed as reference. There is also no content that seems to be out of place or un-belonging. Considering the lack of information in this sub-section versus the others, the content added makes it on par with the rest of the article.

Organization:
The organization is simple as there is only topic the user has added to and within that the organization makes sense comprehensively and flows well with the current structure of the article. The lead also flows well into the mention of the newly added content. There are no or very miniscule grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

Tone & balance:
The tone of the original article was unbiased and as is this one. Even with all the added information (that one could argue shows the positives) does not make it seem as if there is any persuasion or attempt to sway the reader. There is a representation of the "downsides"/opposition but it is not downplayed. Although the content is neutral, I would maybe suggest mentioning the opposition more but it is still good as is (considering the sources/references).

Images & Media:
As of right now there is no media at all. I would argue it could be difficult to depict this information in the form of images but if anything, I would suggest the editor to try and find something if they can. A way to either show the technology mentioned or just images representing the terms/concepts mentioned. I only suggest this because the rest of the article and various sub-sections all do have media content alongside the text.

Sources & References:
All new content is backed-up with solid sources and there are multiple sources that in my opinion, are more than enough in diversity. There are many new sources with these edits and considering the ratio of edits to sources, there is in no way, any reliance on just the same source/reference. All the links work and are properly added. They also are all very up-to-date with the years ranging from 2022-2023.

Overall Impressions:
My overall impressions are that this is a very good edit. I would even say this could be a great representation of what an article edit should be especially considering the context of how this is a part of an already well established article yet still adds a substantive amount to it by just editing a single sub-section alone. The article feels much more complete because originally it seemed as if this sub-section was lacking greatly compared to the rest but after these changes, it will be at the same level of content. One particular strength of these edits are how there are a numerous amounts of sources that are all very recent so the information is much more "believable".