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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mayaworthing


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Lead
The lead is concise and does a good job at introducing the article. The addition of "due to COVID-19 pandemic" when explaining why the conference was not held in 2020 is crucial and relevant. It shows readers that this article has been updated recently to reflect changes and incidents that have happened not long ago.

Content, Tone and Balance
The content added provided further detail and explanation to preexisting information within the article. The information added about Coca-Cola's plastic pollution might seem biased at first glance, however it is a fact. The citation by Chua et al. (2020) that was added is recent and from a reputable source, so it properly supports the new information. In order to further concretize these statements I would suggest adding a few more citations talking about the same claims. This would convince the readers that they are in fact true, and provide them with more proof. For example, try to find something more specific about the toxic chemical compounds found in Coca-Cola bottles, how long has the company been named top polluter for, etc. Also maybe mention the effects of plastic and excess water usage on climate change in order to keep the additions relevant to the article.

Sources and References
All of the new content is backed by a reliable and recent secondary source of information. For example, sources 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the sandbox are all peer reviewed journal articles. Source 3 replaced a previous source that was not very relevant. However I do not necessarily agree with deleting hyperlinks leading to Wikipedia articles that do not exist yet. Usually when these red links appear in a Wikipedia article, they attract attention and might motivate another user to do something about it. I believe keeping the "nonexistent" link could possibly lead to the creation of a Wikipedia page for activist Svitlana Romanko by another editor. There seems to be enough information about her on the internet. Same thing about the Sustainable Markets Initiative.

Organization
The content is well organized and follows a neat structure. It is clear and easy to read. The original article itself is quite long and packed with information but it flows easily. My peer also fixed a handful of grammatical mistakes and awkward sentences that lacked coherence. Editing the dates into a different structure (for example, changing "11 November" to "November 11th") was not exactly necessary but it made the article look aesthetically better.

Overall Impressions
The content added improved the overall quality of the article. Suggestions were added in their respective sections.