User:Kcl55/Climate change in the United States/Shreyaprao Peer Review

General info

 * Kcl55
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kcl55/Climate change in the United States

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

==== Content evaluation: I think that all of the content that you added to this topic was relevant. It also seems to be up-to-date. I do not believe there was any content missing, and I do believe that your article will be a great addition to the article you have chosen to further examine the dynamics of climate change in America and how we are all affected in different levels from it. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The tone was neutral throughout the piece; there were no signs of biases towards a position. You managed to state facts and support your argument without there being any sort of shift. There is a neutral representation, and there does not seem to be any attempt to persuade the reader in a position. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

==== Sources and references evaluation: All of the content was back up by sources, but there is a source of potential bias in this source: "Flint Water Crisis: Everything You Need to KNoow". This is because this source is from an organization pushing for the Flint Water Crisis to be resolved, and while this is something I personally believe need to happen as well, it does create potential bias in what figures and information they choose to present to the readers. Also, I couldn't seem to access the first two sources on your reference list, as they did not have any links attached. Other than these small edits, though, I appreciated reading your content. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added 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?

==== Organization evaluation: The content was free or grammar and spelling errors. I appreciated the way that the article way broken down, and I particularly like that you included specific cities to further give the readers to the situation of environmental racism. You broke down the article into sections that made the content easier to understand as well. ====

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation: The overall quality of the article certainly is improved by this addition, and the strength that the content has is that it will provide future readers with a more holistic view of how climate change in America is certainly an issue that affects some more than others. I think that the content can be improved by fixing the smaller edits of the source and references. ====