User:Karenviera10/Chasing Coral/Karlaviera10 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? (karenviera10)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chasing Corals

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer since the original topic is on a documentary on coral where she chose to add a section explaining what coral bleaching is since the original article was very brief.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence by introducing what the documentary is about and how it relates to corals.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections by introducing coral bleaching along with its causes and effects before going in depth.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead includes information about the documentary on corals which is not explained further in the sections added by my peer.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and to the point.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise enough and introduces the following sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Since the original document is based on a documentary on corals, the sections added by my peer explaining what is coral bleaching along with its causes and effects are relevant to the topic facilitating the audience's understanding on the documentary.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up to date with references that are from the years 2000 onward.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing or content that does not belong since the information provided for what is coral bleaching and its causes and effects is suffice for a general understanding.

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral and provides strictly facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biases towards a particular position since scientific article were used to synthesis the information added.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Each section added by my peer contains the necessary information to gain a general knowledge on the subject.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another since coral bleaching is a global issue that doesn't have sides to it.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added provides a neutral standpoint on the subject.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information appropriately cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are mainly scientific articles so they reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The content added is up to date with references that are from the years 2000 onward.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The new content added is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that are up to date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written since it is concise, clear, and easy to read with the appropriate references.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not 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?
 * The content is organized into headings "coral bleaching", "causes", and "effects" clearly outlining the information in each section.

Organization evaluation
The content added is well-written with no spelling or grammatical errors. The information is clearly organized into sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images includes enhance the understanding of the topic by providing images that demonstrate corals, coral after they are bleached, and an infographic on corals.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well-captioned aiding in the understanding of the information added to the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations since they were inserted from Wikipedia's stock images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are laid out to the right of the information coinciding with the information that is being presented.

Images and media evaluation
The images aid in the understanding of the information added and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added definitely improved the overall quality of the article by providing a more complete picture on what the subject of the documentary is about by explaining what is coral bleaching along with describing its causes and effects.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength of the content added provides a well-understanding on the topic of coral bleaching.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by adding more infographic images that directly reference the content added to further aid the audience's reading.

Overall evaluation
Overall the content added to the article provides a well-rounded scope of information on coral bleaching and its causes and effects that helps the audience understand the main subject of the documentary and why coral bleaching is a global issue.