User:KeeLgd/Deforestation and climate change/Enina24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@KeeLgd


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

KeeLgd/Deforestation and climate change


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Deforestation and climate change

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to reflect new content added, the edit directly says what sentence is being replaced and what sentence it will be replaced with. For example, My Edits: Replace sentence "Some of the effects of climate change, such as more wildfires, may increase deforestation." with "Some of the effects of climate change, such as wildfires, insect outbreaks, invasive species, and storms are factors that increase deforestation .


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -  Yes, the introductory sentence on the main article's lead clearly and concisely describes the topic of the article, it says "Deforestation is a primary contributor to climate change, climate change affects forests. 
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The lead does include a brief description of some major sections of the article like "Causes of deforestation" but not information about the "Counteracting climate change" and "Policies, projects, and foundations" sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No, information in the lead is explained in some depth in the major sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - For the amount of sections and information in the article I feel like the lead is concise and it doesn't go too in-depth.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, most edits are replacement and removal of information but all the added information is relevant to the topic for example "Replace sentence " Mass deforestation continues to threaten tropical forests, their biodiversity, and the ecosystem services they provide." with "Mass deforestation continues to threaten a variety of forests, their biodiversity, and the ecosystem they provide." Only stating tropical forests can be too specific and should instead be dedicated to a separate subcategory. Only stating one category of forest can make the reader think that it is not global/happening where they live."
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The sandbox doesn't contain many references for the sections that are edited in the article because many reliable articles seem to be already in the main article, but the reference present is up-to-date; last updated in 2022. "Some of the effects of climate change, such as wildfires, insect outbreaks, invasive species, and storms are factors that increase deforestation .
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I would say for a good add in for the article there could be sections about deforestation today in 2022 and 2023, maybe new technology added to help it. Also, a section about different areas of the earth like North America, Latin America and Asia current climate change and deforestation.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics ? - In some sections like "Livestock ranching" and "Agricultural expansion" it will talk about places where underrepresented populations lived in and how livestock and agricultural was use by them. For example "Livestock ranching was established in Tejas at the time of the Spanish Missions, between 1820 and 1865 and was mainly driven by Mexican cowboys.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, this edit specifically makes it natural " Mass deforestation continues to threaten tropical forests, their biodiversity, and the ecosystem services they provide." with "Mass deforestation continues to threaten a variety of forests, their biodiversity, and the ecosystem they provide." Only stating tropical forests can be too specific and should instead be dedicated to a separate subcategory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, the content added gives the reader many options and makes the decision to the reader at the end.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - So far all new information is backed up by reliable sources in the main article page like I mentioned before like news websites and peer reviewed article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes, for example the sited source says "Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas". While the content on the article says "Land use changes, especially in the form of deforestation, are the second largest anthropogenic source of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, after fossil fuel combustion."
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Most scholarly sources have many diverse authors involved in the writing process. Also, some sources may only include one author.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - I would say some better sources could include books about Climate change and deforestation like "The Story of More: How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go from Here".

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -  The content added has made the article easy to read from previous grammar mistakes. Sentences are more clear and concise.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The content added does make it well organized, this edit "I think that a lot of information featured in the Causes of deforestation category can be moved into this one instead. If the information is not moved, then combine both the Causes of deforestation and Effects of deforestationcategories together to create "Causes and effects of deforestation. Both categories talk about how a certain action causes deforestation as well as the result is has on the environment and people. Might as well combine them and make subcategories of each action." it does make the section much easier to read and subcategories are good additions.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - I would say the content added does improve the quality of the article relating to the grammar, organization, and excluding information that is not needed in the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The strengths of the content added is it's clear and have specific intended goals for the main article to make improve its quality.