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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been updated but it doesn't really reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content that's missing is paragraphs of all the information researched put together. What doesn't belong is how it's put like an annotated bibliography. The approach is nice but the information you wanted to use from the articles should've been pulled from them and put into an actual paragraph.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is not completely neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is one comment that makes it seem biased toward a particular position. For example it states "This article is talking about the more specific reasoning as to why the change in climate is dangerous."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There aren't any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented in my opinion.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added does not attempt to persuade in favor of one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources does reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In my opinion there are no grammatical or spellings errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is organized and broken down into sections.

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


 * 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.


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?