User:Matt Patronski/Climate change in the United States/Kiarra120 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? Matt Patronski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Matt Patronski/Climate change in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead 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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good job in summarizing what the foundation of the new content would be about. There was an introductory sentence included that clearly stated the topic, which was the energy debate in climate change. The lead also included a brief description about the energy debate's positive and negative effects on climate change. This information was not included in the article, so it would be good added content. The lead is concise and straight to the point.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The negatives section is missing further information, but there were subsections that showed what will be talked about once the draft is completed.

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
The content added is neutral, with no detection of bias. The content does not lean heavily towards one position or another. The content added includes positive and negative effects on energy in climate change, which provides a more general base of information rather than having a specific viewpoint. The content allows the reader to get a clear understanding that there are positive and negative sides of energy in climate change, instead of solely benefits or consequences.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
All new content is backed up by a reliable source, as seen with the included citations added. The sources were pretty thorough and up-to-date, and they were related to the topic and content. The links to the sources worked, but there were no links included in the added content.

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
The content was well-written and easy to understand. There were a few punctuation errors, but they were minor. Overall, the content was well-organized into sections and subsections which was good.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There were no images included. However, an images section was shown as a side-note, foreshadowing that there may be pictures included once the draft is completed?

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 author does a great job in describing what the sections would be about before discussing it. I was able to follow along easily. Completing the negatives section would be a start for completion. I noticed that just about every sentence in the sections were cited with a source, which may or may not be a problem? Check with the professor to make sure. The strength of the content was that it was easy to follow, since there was a good lead section describing what will be talked about.