User:Mayaworthing/2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference/AllisonStacho Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mayaworthing


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mayaworthing/2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead section did not get updated to reflected the new information added, however I do not feel as though this was necessary as the information added was in addition to a previous section that is already covered.

Content

The content added was relevant to the topic and important to the section it was added to, however there was little content added overall, few citations and one of the citations did not seem to work and was mildly outdated (over ten years). However, the content added is important to the topic at hand, but if there is possibility for additional expansion elsewhere or more citations that are up-to-date, that would be good.

Tone and Balance

The tone and balance was neutral and did not seem to heavily bias the reader one way or another. The viewpoints were well-represented and I believe it discusses the consequences without straying towards a particular bias one way or another.

Sources and References

The sources were limited - I believe there were only two added citations and one of them did not work. I believe there may be some benefit to further expansion, further addition of sources and perhaps some that are within the last few years as well as outdated. Otherwise, the content is backed up by sources and citations accurately and effectively.

(The [7] source should potentially be after the bracket however in the introduction paragraph)?

Organization

The content that was added was easy to read, with no spelling errors, and it was concise.

Images and Media

No images were added.

Overall Impressions

I think the content added did improve the article overall, I think it expanded on an important section of the article, backed it up by sources, and also added a source in the introduction paragraph as well. I think there could be room for improvement by potentially fixing and adding more sources, and maybe expanding on another section or adding more sources to a different section. The organization and grammar was good as well, the content was easy to read. Overall very good addition.