User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean/Aestape2019 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?  Klc2019, Brittany3000, SierraWebb
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Climate change in the Caribbean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It seems so, the information they want to add looks like it comes from the "climate change" article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I want to say so, it briefly talks about climate change but not specifically climate change in the Caribbean.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Maybe, it definitely has information from the "climate change" article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The resources presented look good and relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The information from sources are form 2011 and 2012
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I can't say if anything is missing, I don't know their plans for revising the article. For the lead, I'm . not sure if the article needs information from another article (being climate change)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes and no. The content added doesn't seem close to be officially published yet, it looks like it is still in the planning phase.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Maybe in the lead where they said: "With this being said, humans have increased the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide by producing too much greenhouse gases by the production of burning fossil fuels." There needs to, at least, have a source included that proves this point.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There aren't a whole lot of viewpoints being presented, it looks to be more in the planning stages of revision.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really, there is some information that seems like it's intended to show/convince the reader how bad climate change is

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? The latest article is form 2012
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links I checked worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and in bullet form, still seems to be in planning stages
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found, but it is written informally as of right now
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not really, it lists sources and explains them and then possible details to add to the article.

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


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

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. N/A'''


 * 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? It may be more complete if the information is cleaned up, sorted through and rewritten.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the plans made for what they plan to do to the article
 * How can the content added be improved? Clean up the information they want to add, add different sections, format it and add citations.

Overall evaluation
I like the plans that they made to make changes to the article, it looks like they can build upon the article in a strong way.