User:Kzakarian/Environmental impact of recreational diving/Osabby13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kzakarian


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Kzakarian/Environmental impact of recreational diving
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Environmental impact of recreational diving

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

Guiding questions:

●      Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

○      The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer.

●      Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

○      Yes, the Lead has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic.

●      Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

○      No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections.

●      Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

○      The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

●      Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

○      The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:

●      Is the content added relevant to the topic?

○      Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.

●      Is the content added up-to-date?

○      Yes, the content added is up-to-date.

●      Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

○      There is not content that is mission, nor content that does not belong.

●      Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

●      Is the content added neutral?

○      Yes, the content added is neutral.

●      Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

○      No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

●      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

○      No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

●      Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

○      No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

●      Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

○      Yes, all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

●      Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

○      Yes, the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.

●      Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

○      Yes, the sources are thorough.

●      Are the sources current?

○      Yes, the sources are current.

●      Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

○      No, the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals.

●      Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

○      Yes, there are better sources available such as peer-reviewed articles in place of random websites.

●      Check a few links. Do they work?

○      Yes, the links 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?

○      The content added has no grammatical or spelling 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 well-organized.

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

●      Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

○      Yes, the article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic.

●      Are images well-captioned?

○      Yes, images are well-captioned.

●      Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

○      Yes, all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.

●      Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

○      Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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, the article meets Wikipedia’s Notability requirements.

●      How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

○      The list of sources is exhaustive and accurately represents available literature on the subject. However, peer-reviewed literature would enhance it.

●      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?

○      No, the article does not follow the patterns of other similar articles.

●      Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

○      The article links 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?

○      The content added improved the overall quality of the article.

●      What are the strengths of the content added?

○      The strengths of the content added include the incorporations of educational companies and nonprofits that enable people to participate in diving without harming the environment.

●      How can the content added be improved?

The content added can be improved by adding peer-reviewed articles as sources to further establish credibility.