User:Magicccfff/2020 California wildfires/SafeSorry 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): Magicccfff
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Magicccfff/2020 California wildfires

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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead was concise and informative. It included new information which was overlooked in the article but nice to know. Your introductory sentence labeling the event as a "gigafire" was a nice touch to hook the reader and describe the intensity of the situation. You might want to consider including a short description of some of the sections throughout the article. Overall, your lead is good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or 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?

Content evaluation
The content of your article is relevant, as the NFIC is the agency which handles wildfires. You also list the total number of fire incidents and acres burned by the fire, which is an important update to the article. Overall, your content meets the criteria for wiki standards.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Since it is purely information, the content is neutral which is good. You even manage to remain neutral while discussing the president, which is a very political topic. Neutral tone throughout.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
You use reliable secondary sources which provide relevant information on the topic. The link for the second reference, however, is broken. You may want to check that. Grammar and syntax are fine. Content makes sense and reflects the major points.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content you provided added minor details which add extra information to a very knowledge based wikipedia article. What's good about these additions is that they're all fact based, meaning that there is little room for interpretation or error. It could be improved only by adding more information, possible adding a new section that relates to the topic of 2020 California wildfires. Overall well done revision.