User:Nilmariliz/Climate change in Arizona/ACelesteL 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Nilmariliz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nilmariliz/Climate change in Arizona

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 section has been updated reflecting the new content added. And it is a very brief description of some of the topics touched in the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic, I consider she is doing a good job adding relevant information to the existing sections that in the article seem pretty incomplete. There is not many references added yet to the article, so it is difficult to address if most the content is up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions: r-3 nhwtqro uhiiodq pdvwohu yhuhvwd


 * 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 does not in any way attempt to persuade the reader or contains biased claims. It keeps an informative and and neutral tone on every new piece of information added.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the new content is backed up with a source, some very recent, but other sources belong to the closer years of the beginning of the last twenty years. Because climate change is a phenomenon with a very worryingly quick evolutive process in the recent years, I would suggest to try to find some sources a little bit more up to date concerning the article. There is also an external link that is not working.

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 new content is well developed, I found it very clear and easy to understand, very organized as well.

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?

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
I noticed that in the live article (not in your contributions), there are various direct quotes (all cited) from the sources, it could be possible that some of those are violating the plagiarism policies of Wikipedia, maybe checking those out and seeing if there can be a better paraphrasing done to the content could help you improve the article. Another thing that could be very helpful to improve the article, is to find some recent sources that can be a part of it, not necessarily in the References but in the Further Readings sections as well, since this is a topic that is in constant change.

Compared to the live article, your contributions make complete sense and it is very noticeable that you are doing a good job in adding relevant and missing information to the article, and you're doing so in a very organized way as well. The information is clear and easy to understand, and it seems you are already improving the article.

Remember to verify if the links work and the grammar and spell check (even though everything seems correctly written!).