User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean/Mfreedberg2016 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) Klc2019
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean / Article: Climate change in the Caribbean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- Yes, provides new and complete information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- It is concise, and simple

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, relevant to the topic and adds new detail
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- No, it supports evidence towards climate change in the Caribbean
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- Yes, in favor of climate change, supports evidence towards that

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?- yes
 * Are the sources current?- yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- clear and well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- not that I saw
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- yes but not many
 * Are images well-captioned?- no, needs work
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?-yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- yes

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, made the article better and more supported with factual information
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- good information added, enhanced the article and supports the main ideas
 * How can the content added be improved?- More use of imaging and content