User:Rebbyrebby3/Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest/Wdesr002 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? (provide username) -Rebbyrebby3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rebbyrebby3/Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -The lead is relevant to the topic chosen. They made sure to stay on the subject of deforestation in the amazon rain forest.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: The lead does in fact include an introduction that is clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes, the lead includes the articles major sections, such as the threats to the rain forest, its significance to humanity and why it is being deforested.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? :The lead stays on topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?:The lead is concise and does not over represent information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? :Yes the content is relevant to the topic. It speaks about deforestation in the amazon rain forest.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? : Yes, the content is added up to date and includes links that are functioning.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No there is no missing content missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? :The content is for the most part neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No, claims come off as bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? : No claims are over represented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content maintains an objective stance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? :Yes, the content uses sources that are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? :Yes, the sources are thorough and provide factual information.
 * Are the sources current? :Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? : The content is easy to read and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? : No the content does not have grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes the content is well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (No added images.)


 * 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 (Not new article)
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? Yes, the article is more complete since it mentions new information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? :Strengths that the article added is that it mentioned the capital and cultural values that the amazon rain forest provides to humanity.
 * How can the content added be improved? : Perhaps it could have mentioned reasons for the deforestation.

Overall the created content was pretty good for a new Wikipedia post. It was concise and easy to understand, had no biases, had working links and sources and also mentioned new information.