User:Jessicasabatini/Light pollution/MARMISAHM Peer Review

General info
Jessicasabatini
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jessicasabatini/Light pollution
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Light pollution

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.)

'''Hi Jessica, I really enjoyed reading your sandbox draft! Below I have some suggestions for improvement. Although, overall great work, keep it up and Goodluck! I tried to keep my feedback as concise as possible and did it in bullet point and referred to specific sections as needed. It’s organized in order of the training module we did on peer reviews and feedback.'''

Lead:
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It hasn’t
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does include a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes the topic of over-illumination.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Your lead doesn’t include a brief description of the major sections. Maybe you could summarize key points from the entire sandbox draft, including economic impacts, health effects, and reduction strategies, in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Your lead does not include information that is not present in the draft. However, you could add global aspects and impacts on health and the environment. I don’t know if there is empirical data for this, but if there is, it’ll be a good start!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Your lead is concise, but it could provide a more thorough overview of the article's content, so again, maybe summarize key points from the entire sandbox draft, including economic impacts, health effects, and reduction strategies, in the lead.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added by you is relevant to the topic of light pollution.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added has references to recent studies and statistics.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Your draft could have more detailed information on the economic impact of light pollution. . I think the economic impact section is relatively brief compared to what I perceive its significance to be, so it might be worthwhile to  provide a more information on the topic. You can maybe add a subsection about different environmentalist groups that do work on this, whether its policy, or actual groundwork.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Your draft doesn’t specifically address Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations. You should try to see if there is any empirical data that could be included to address this.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral? Your content is neutral and doesn’t have bias toward a particular side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims in your draft that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Your draft does not seem to overrepresent or underrepresent any viewpoints. I do think though, that you could add additional perspectives that could be included to provide a better overview of the topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Your content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the new content added by you is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? The content does accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Your sources reflect the available literature on the topic, but I think you could add some more, if there are additional sources that could provide a better overview.
 * Are the sources current? Your sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Your sandbox draft has a variety of reliable sources, like journal articles, government reports, and reputable organizations. This is favorable as according to our peer review training.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Your content is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There wasn’t any that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sandbox draft is organized logically into sections, but the economic impact section could be expanded. I think the economic impact section is relatively brief compared to what I perceive its significance to be, so it might be worthwhile to  provide a more information on the topic. You can maybe add a subsection about different environmentalist groups that do work on this, whether its policy, or actual groundwork.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it did. Although there was only 1.
 * Are images well-captioned? I thought so.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I’m not sure what the source is for the picture, but if you took it yourself, I believe you still have to cite it.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, there is only 1 so I can’t comment too much on it. Maybe add more.

Overall Impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? As compared to the original article, your sandbox improved the overall quality of the article, especially by adding relevant information and citations.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of your content include the relevance of the information added, the neutrality of the tone, and the organization of the content.
 * How can the content added be improved? Consider expanding the economic impact section, adding a brief description of major sections in the lead, and exploring if there are aspects of light pollution that could address Wikipedia's equity gaps. I would also add pictures and more information on envoroemtalists groups that address light pollution.

-Mishal