User:Kitbrooks/Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest/Magicccfff 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)
 * Kitbrooks
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kitbrooks/Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There has not been an update that reflected new content
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The initial sentence only talks about rainforest and then moves on to deforestation
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major section
 * The lead does include a brief description about deforestation.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, information is all present and cited.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead was concise and leaves good facts for the reader

Lead evaluation
The lead was nice, and it provided a nice start to the paper.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The new content did add relevant facts and details to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all up-to-date with recent information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content was missing, and all the content was relevant
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It briefly mentioned the native people so it does deal with equity gaps.

Content evaluation
The content was all up to date and really relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it was neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints are well balanced
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is very good. Nothing out of place. I think maybe you can talk more about the ways people could prevent deforestation.

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?
 * They do
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yup, in recent years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, used a lot of different authors and citations.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very clear and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is some grammatical error, where commas are not used that should be used
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The pictures did enhance my understanding
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Make sure every image is captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they are
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, it is laid out well

Images and media evaluation
The pictures were utilized very well and was a good reference after reading the section and visualizing the pictures afterwards.

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 article is more complete and improved the quality
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It talked more in depth about the rainforest and deforestation, which added relevant details to the reader.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe insert more relevant details on how everyday people can influence or prevent deforestation, such as ways to stop or ways to fundraise or donate.

Overall evaluation
I really enjoyed the article, and I thought the content added was really relevant to the original document.