User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean/Stefaniav12 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? Sierra Webb
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Klc2019/Climate change in the Caribbean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Yes, the Lead is informative and the information clearly describes the article's topic which is 'Climate Change in the Caribbean'.
 * 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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Lead evaluation
Yes, the Lead is informative and the information clearly describes the article's topic which is 'Climate Change in the Caribbean'. Based on Sierra's sandbox, the effects of climate change caused by emission of greenhouse gases are leading to high increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There is enough proof and links to websites which inform more about the effects of global climate change on the Caribbean.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * 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? yes
 * 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? no

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The tone of this sandbox seems neutral from both peers. I don't seem to see anything overrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it's more in paragraph style, instead of broken down into sections

Organization evaluation

 * I believe it is informative, but the organization of it, isn't quite as good. The information is more clumped instead of organized by categories.

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? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n /a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a good amount of sources/links to the information they found.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? The information isn't really broken into categories, just clumped into statements or paragraphs.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There is minor addition of information, but it will make a difference.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Examples of content added are reasons for climate change
 * How can the content added be improved? Find more sources.

Overall evaluation

 * I believe the content added is useful for their article evaluation. There is more information they should find through several sources that way they'll have more to add. The sources they listed are definitely strengths because it's their citation. Both peers did good and had good citation, no plagiarism found.