User:Mollyyg/Social cost of carbon/Iadaniel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Social Cost of Carbon by Mollyyg


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mollyyg/Social_cost_of_carbon?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social cost of carbon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes the content added is relevant and useful for understanding the legislation and regulations involved in calculating the SCC in the US. It gave a good amount of evidence in the history of the policies implemented to calculate the cost, and a run down on the differences in finding the SCC based on presidential administration
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- Yes this content seems to be up to date, as it talks about how to find the SCC in recent administrations, but I don't know how else this could be more up to date. Maybe there could be more recent legislation made about it?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- Maybe you could look into the specific individuals proposing legislation and policies, or people in the Office of Management and Budget or the U.S. Government Accountability Office?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- No, but maybe you could look into how areas with larger demographics of marginalized people could effect this? I know that air quality in these areas are considerably worse than other areas.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?-Yes, its very informative and unbiased
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?-No

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)- Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes
 * Are the sources current?- Not all of them, but I think its enough to give background information on the topic
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- I don't believe so, but a lot of these sources come from larger institutions so im not sure if the editors have much control over that.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)- I don't think so since these are all government sources and/ or from reliable institutions
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- The links all work

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes it was easy to read and I felt as though the information was presented in chronological order
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- No, none that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes, the United States section in much more robust and thorough
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- More background information about how the Unites States deals with the SCC
 * How can the content added be improved?- Maybe more info on how these policies and executive orders came about and the particular interests behind these decisions