User:KaylaCarleton/Cadmium telluride photovoltaics/Cushing, D.W Peer Review

General info
KaylaCarleton

User:KaylaCarleton/Cadmium telluride photovoltaics

Lead
Guiding questions:

The Lead appears to require no update to reflect the new content.

Lead evaluation
N/A.

Content
The content being added is relevant to the topic. It expands and elaborates on an existing sub-topic (i.e. Recycling) and adds a new sub-topic (i.e. Environmental Impact).

Of the cited sources, 40% are a little dated (e.g. 2000-2004) however the majority range from fairly recent (i.e. 2013) to most recent (2018-2020).

The only out of place mention pertains to "European funded procedures" (in the Recycling section), for it introduces added detail beyond the topic. Otherwise, an addition might be to explain (or link) mentioned methodologies (e.g. the Double Green Process). However, no significant content appears to be missing or does not belong.

Content evaluation
Very good; other than the previously mentioned details, the added content is a clear and concise addition to the overall subject

Tone and Balance
The content being added displays exceptional neutrality, and presents the bare facts without displaying any bias towards a particular position.

The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader to favour any position.

The viewpoints being expressed appear to neither overrepresent or underrepresent a specific viewpoint.

Tone and balance evaluation
Exceptional; the new content appears to demonstrate neutrality by presenting the simple facts while neither taking a side nor attempting to persuade the reader on any given position.

Sources and References
The content sources appear to be reliable, peer reviewed and, or from recognized journals. Without extensive research, the sources seem to provide some general insight of the topic while being fairly current.

There are no links provided for the sources. Would recommend that when citing sources to use the articles ISSN/ISBN/Article's name or other identifier in Wikipedia's search and cite engine. However, after trial and error attempting to link the original article proved difficult for viewing by non-student Wikipedia users (e.g. the article "Photovoltaics: Environment, Health and Safety Issues and Perspectives").

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are decent; however the references are missing links. Recommend providing links to the given sources if possible, or revising the selection of sources.

Organization
The new added content is mostly well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. Only the first paragraph discussing the three methods of recycling may require some revision (e.g. perhaps placing each in succession in one sentence and explaining each in subsequent ones).

The content does not display any significant grammatical or spelling errors.

The content is generally well-organized, flows with the overall material and reflects the topic points.

Organization evaluation
Decent.

Overall impressions
The general impression of the added content is that it adds to the overall quality of the articles by expanding on the previous work.

The added content strengthens the article in three ways: it expands on one of the main sub-topics, adds a new and relevant one, and adds some balance to the overall discussion (i.e. objectively gives pros and cons).

The added content might be improved by refining the section as described above and adding links to the cited sources.

Overall evaluation
Very decent addition to the article and topic of discussion, and may require only slight modification.