User:Nilmariliz/Climate change in Arizona/Adriana.Santiago16 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 (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/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? The Lead in the draft has been updated. I consider that the information added is great for the improvement of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I consider that the introductory sentence describe clearly the topic and is concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead in the draft and in the article doesn't describe article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information that includes the Lead of the article and the draft is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead in the draft and in the article not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The Lead from the draft is a great Lead is improving the article. I think that Lead from the original article and the one from the draft are concise but I think it will be better if a description of those major's sections of the article is added. Also, I consider that if some information about Arizona's natural climate added it will make it a greater Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? In the article and the draft, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I consider that in the article and the draft there is not content that doesn't belong.

Content evaluation}
The content in the article is relevant to the topic but I think that it needs a improvement in the introductory sentence of the section Wildfires and changing landscapes. I consider that all of the sections have a good introductory sentence but I think that Wildfires and changing landscapes doesn't, and I suggest for the improvement of the article that the information of the sentence should be more clear and concise.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added in the draft is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the article and the draft there is not content that appear heavily biased to particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I consider that in the article and in the draft there are not viewpoints that are underrepresented or overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content in the article and the draft doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
I consider that the information of the article and the draft have a neutral tone. I suggest that for the improvement of the article is necessary be careful with the tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the new content is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? In the article and the draft, the sources reflect available literature.
 * Are the sources current? I consider that in the article and in the draft the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I checked a few links in the article and in the draft and they work.

Sources and references evaluation
I consider that the article and the draft need more reliable sources that supports the information that has. I suggest for the improvement of the article, add more reliable sources that can support the information that the article has,

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written, clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content doesn't have grammatical or spelling errors.

Organization evaluation
I consider that the article is organized. I don't think that it needs improvement in the organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The draft doesn't have images but the article does and I think that the image that has is relevant to the topic and enhance the understanding, but it looks blur.
 * Are images well-captioned? I consider that the image that the article has is well-captioned but I think that it would be better if the caption is more clear and concise.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image that the article has adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Images and media evaluation
The image that the article has is relevant to the topic and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation, but it looks blur. I suggest that for the improvement of the article if would be great if that image is change for one that looks better. Also, I think that it would enhance the understanding of the article if more images relevant to the topic are added.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article in the draft looks a better but its needs improvement.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I consider that the strengths of the articles in the is the Lead. I think that the information that was added in the draft, and the information that the article has was more organized, clear and concise in the draft.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that the content added in the draft doesn't need to be improved but I think that some citations should be added.

Overall evaluation
I consider that in the draft the article looks better, is more organized, clear and concise. Also, I consider that the Lead, tone and organization is great and doesn't needs improvement. But, I suggest that for the improvement of the article the information needs to be supported by reliable sources, the information for the sections of the article should more clear and concise and I think that some images could be added to enhance the understanding of the topic.