User:Matt Patronski/Climate change in the United States/Ytoledo1 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

 * I am peer reviewing Matt Patronski Article
 * 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 provided only shows the content that the editor would like to provide not any past information that was in the article. The lead sentence does concisely and clearly describer the articles topics. The lead does provide a good introduction to the sections that will be present throughout the article. The information provided in the lead is present thought out the article making the article flow nicely.I think the lead is not overly detailed and is very concise.

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 that was in the article was relevant to the topic giving, positive ways to do energy conservation as well as negative ways that this is done. Most of the content was up to date making the content reliable. The content definitely belongs in the article.

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 is somewhat neural, however, i am interested in how the author deems something as positive or negative? Is it something that is set for everyone or is relative based on what you think is bad and what you think is good. However, i do not think that there is a bias towards one way or another which is good for the article. I know the article is not fully written yet however it would be great if there were more negative reasons. Another good thing is that the article is not trying to persuade you to go one way or another.

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 the content is back by reliable secondary sources. The sources that used are also thorough. However, we only see 2 sources being used throughout the article. I think to make this article more reliable there should be atleast 3-4 reliable sources. The sources are all current, all being published in 2019.

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 is very well organized to make this article concise and clear. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The break down of the sections is very well thought out and nicely organized to make the article an easy read.

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
The article does not include any images

i recommenced adding a few pictures to help make things easier to understand

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 article would be more complete with all this new content that would be added. The added content helps clear up the positive and negative ways to be greener. Adding more pictures would help to make this article an easier read. Including more resources would also be helpful in making the article more reliable.