User:MccEmma/Afforestation/Nightlymist Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MccEmma


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MccEmma/Afforestation

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

 * Afforestation

Lead
Most of the lead information is a copy and paste from the draft. This could be due the lack of information that was present of the article. I noticed that the MccEmma has edited on February 10th, this could be when these sentences were added. The last part of the lead is where there is new information that is not word for word from the article.

There are some updated to reflect the new content added by MccEmma. In the last paragraph, most of the information is new and important about the understanding of Afforestation and the positive effects.

The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topics. There is a description of what Afforestation means.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic and the content added is up-to-date.

There is no content that does not belong.

It seems like the addition to the article helps deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does address topics related to historical underrepresented topics.

Tone and balance
Is the content added neutral?

The content added is neutral. This article "Tyranny of trees in grassy biomes" appears to be heavily biased against "Afforestation but Estimation of CO2 reduction amount by arid land afforestation in Western Australia" that have opposite biased. I believe those two article balance each other out.

There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
The new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

The content accurately reflect the cited sources say.

The sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors and the sources are current. There are sources thorough the article but there is a paragraph that does not have enough references in. Most of the articles that were cited in this draft were peer viewed where there were articles from nasa and another organization. There should be avoidance of organization info that is put out there. There could be better sources to be cited. The links in the article work. The Nasa article is just summarizing another article that is already being used in citation. I believe some of the citations are used in the wrong area. For example in Criticism, the citation is on the last sentence instead of the first sentence which both are using the information from Nasa.

Organization
The content added is well-written. All of the information added was concise, clear, and easy to read. The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized.

Images and media
There is no images or media attached to the article. This could be due getting an image that accurately attached to the article is hard to find.

Overall impression
The content added improved the overall quality of the article. There is a whole section that is going to be added about Canada and their efforts. The strengths of the content added is the well organized and well written material added. The content can have more citations throughout the article. An example of this is the added section of Canada. There is only one citation in the whole paragraph.