User:Sabina Mahavni/Just Transition/Salliejohnson99 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?

Sabina Mahavni


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Sabina Mahavni/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead was shortened slightly by removing some unnecessary detail, not really a reflection of new content added by my peer but I don't think anything needs to be added


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

yes


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, but it is a short article so this may not be necessary


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

no


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

good length

Lead evaluation
I think the changes made are helpful since the lead gets a bit too specific in the last paragraph. Also, with the inclusion of your new section "Accomplishments" you could probably make the lead even more concise by removing information you talk about in that section since the lead is verging on too long for the length of the article.

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All added content seems relevant and constructive

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not in added content, but it might be worthwhile to add a sentence or two discussing opposition to just transition policies, if any


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall very neutral tone, the information given is all objective

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Added content is good, but I noticed that the second sentence in the broadening use section seems incomplete ("Sometimes refer... ignore it") and it might be worth reformatting.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, I think the inclusion of the new section is helpful for the overall structure.

Organization evaluation
I think it might be helpful to reformat the pre-existing content in the "Definition and Evolution" section- it's hard to tell why most of it is indented (is it just a really long quote? And if so it may be helpful to rethink how that information is being presented)

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

none added


 * 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?