User:LeonardoVillacis/Antarctic Cold Reversal/Vulpestooth Peer Review

General info
LeonardoVillacis
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:LeonardoVillacis/Antarctic Cold Reversal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Antarctic Cold Reversal

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is good, it covers what is in the rest of the article and has a good introductory sentence that explains what Antarctic Cold reversal is. The lead is concise but also detailed where it needs to be.

The content added is relevant to the topic and is up to date. Some content is missing, but it seems like it has just yet to be added. There are also no sources cited in the body of the article, only the introduction paragraph so I am not sure where this information is from. Everything is presented in a neutral tone, following Wikipedia's guidelines. I think everything is well balanced, no section has over representation or bias.

Overall, majority of the sources are current (within the last 20 years), some are a bit older but they don't extend further than 30 years. Not all of the new content is backed up with a source, whether that is to be added I am not entirely sure. The content that does have a source linked to them, are relevant and meaningful to what is being presented. The sources are very diverse, with multiple different sources being cited for the same evidence. The links work and direct you to the source cited.

The content is well organized, concise, and clear. It was very easy to understand and informed me about what the Antarctic Cold reversal was. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is broken down nicely, I really like that there is a separate section for each of the major areas highlighted by ACR.

My overall impressions of this article is that it is very well written. It seems like something I would already find on Wikipedia. I think something you can add would be an image of relevance. Obviously this is still a work in progress so I am not sure if you will be filling out the New Zealand and Tasmania sections, but they will round out this article more. This article is very strong in that it has a lot of evidence supporting the major information. My only nitpicky thing is maybe spelling out "atmospheric Carbon dioxide" as atmCO2 is an abbreviation that not everyone may understand. I think your additions and edits to this article really work and am excited to see how you finish this article up!