User:Kcl55/Climate change in the United States/Jnk03 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? (provide username): Kcl55
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kcl55/Climate change in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I do not think so, since the Lead to the main article doesn't mention environmental racism.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead briefly discusses the effects of climate change, how it is perceived in the United States, and its contributors, but it doesn't mention environmental racism.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead doesn't mention US policy regarding climate change, even though that is one of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I don't think so.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is concise, but more information can be added, such as mentions about US environmental policy and environmental racism.

Lead evaluation
I think the Lead needs to be updated to reflect the addition of the new section on environmental racism.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there needs to be details about how the Flint Water crisis is an example of environmental racism, and more elaboration about Uniontown too, if possible.

Content evaluation
I think the second section about examples of environmental racism needs details about the two incidents mentioned. How exactly is it affecting the communities of color?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The content discusses environmental racism, which some may argue against. But the content about the cited incidents is based on other reports, so I think it is okay.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
I do not know if this is necessary, but is it okay to only have one source for each example of environmental racism?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think it is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * First paragraph:
 * I think there might be a better way to introduce the Flint Water crisis rather than "Flint Michigan : 2014"
 * "the cities water supply" should be "the city's"
 * "Uniontown Alabama" should be "Uniontown, Alabama" but I think the transition sentence is unnecessary.
 * "environmental racisms" should be "environmental racism"
 * "This is a very well known case of environmental racism in the United States, but this is merely one of the most recent examples of the presence of environmental racism"
 * I added a comma in the middle
 * Second paragraph:
 * I think there might be a better way to introduce Uniontown rather than with a colon
 * "The Arrowhead landfill can be found right next to the city of Uniontown and served as normal landfill until 2008, when more than a billion gallons of highly toxic coal ash spilled in Kingston, Tennessee"
 * I added a comma in the middle
 * "The ash was considered to be toxic in Tennessee, but once the hazard ash reached Alabama it wasn't considered toxic, according to the Resource Conversation Recovery Act (RCRA), exposing the town of majority low-income African Americans to dangerous toxins."
 * I added commas
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The content is easy to understand, but there are some grammatical errors.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A because there are no added images or media.

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?
 * I think environmental racism is a relevant topic that should be added to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is a good idea to cite specific examples of environmental racism in case people might argue that none exist.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the examples need more detail explaining why they are examples of environmental racism.