User:Sabina Mahavni/Solar power in California/Dalanlaughlin 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) Sabrina 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? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
I think your additions to the lead are great and provide good overview for the things that will follow.

I would maybe add a bit more information not just on statistics but the other stuff you talk about in the lead (i.e. -housing affordability or more broadly benefits or something idk)

Content
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? No

Content evaluation
I think your content additions are good and helpful in understanding this vague ideas more.

I am a bit confused on this part "due to the high amount of clean energy in the grid during the day". Like produced or? I know its not your work but you edited the sentence so thinking might be good to edit this too.

Do you need this ? -> "with the only state less affordable being Hawaii"

I think that whatever section you choose to edit, in terms of grading on GPP's end, you should edit the entire paragraph a bit. I know its not perfect but like I think that is what we are being asked to do (atleast edit with the information we know?) because from a grading standpoint they are going to read your entire section probably or paragraphs.

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Great job with keeping a neutral tone. There are some articles

I know not your words, but again your editing this section so this might create bias? "This overlap would devalue a more powerful home solar system" and "an area where California already struggles greatly" and

Sources and References
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
Sources are up to date. Not sure, but think maybe add more sources to back up ideas we are being graded on quality/quantity too. Also, are these sources coming from reputable sources? I clicked on 13 and it seems like an external kind of site? Maybe we could clarify this idea with prof.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat

Organization evaluation
Overall, good additions to a messy and disorganized article. You bring greater clarity to the topics at hand.

I would read this sentence outloud once more to check for grammatical errors "or individual properties if they received approval from the CEC and local utility company" and

Also I was thinking - do you think the information on housing affordability would be better suited for another section? Like is that a historical concern or a modern concern because could fall under 'Public Opinion'.

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? more evidence for statements put out, more up to date information
 * How can the content added be improved? I would not change the content added just perhaps organized differently?

Overall evaluation
I think overall your additions are very beneficial and helpful in this article. You provide up to date information and more evidence for your facts. I would just recheck sources for credibility (I could be wrong due to lack of knowledge in this area) and also check that the sentences you are editing are edited in full, not just your part. Overall, great job!