User:Kitbrooks/Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest/Teddieursa 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/sandbox
 * I think you might have used the wrong sandbox. I think you were supposed to use the sandbox specifically for this article:
 * User:Kitbrooks/Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead doesn't really include any information about the new section you added about combating deforestation.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence just describes the rainforest. It doesn't really start to talk about deforestation until later in the lead. I don't think this is a bad thing though since it gives readers background information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I think it does except it doesn't include the new section about combatting deforestation.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No all the information seems to be referenced again in later sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I thought the lead was overly detailed as it included a lot of facts and percents which were then mentioned later in the article.

Lead evaluation
I think some of the overly detailed content could be cut, and the new information from the new section could be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I thought the new content was an interesting and relevant addition.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it appears to include facts from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I thought the content fit the article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It talks about indigenous people in one of the sections.

Content evaluation
I didn't see any problems with the content added. Nice job!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I thought it presented in a balanced way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not really, it might be nice to include a quote from an indigenous person in the subsection about the "Impact on indigenous people."
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * not at all

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very well-balanced. I think it could include some quotes from indigenous people.

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?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, but I think more sources from within the last few years could be included since restoration efforts likely change often.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, I believe so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links you referenced work

Sources and references evaluation
Nice job! You could include a few more recent sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I found the new content high quality and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I couldn't find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but I think you could merge the content from the new section and the section already in the article about the future of the rainforest. Or, you could more clearly define the two sections. One section could be about just the future predicted deforestation of the rainforest, and then another section could be just about the efforts being made against deforestation.

Organization evaluation
Consider merging/ changing the sections of the article to make it a better fit with the new content added.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I liked the pictures a lot. They were nice to reference while reading the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * One of the graphs didn't have a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I found the use of images improved the visual appeal of the article.

Images and media evaluation
Nice use of images. I think a caption should be added to the one graph.

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?
 * Yes definitely. The content added was important for giving readers a more full view of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the new content was interesting, and it hit on information that was missing in the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add sources from the past few years, make sure all images have captions, change the organization with respect to the new content added, and include quotes from indigenous people.

Overall evaluation
Nice job!