User:Sabina Mahavni/Solar power in California/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? (provide username) Sabina Mahavani
 * 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, updated statistics to keep article more current


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

The lead is flagged by wikipedia for not adequately summarizing the contents since it only gives some data about solar power in California without introducing the concepts of the discussion.


 * 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?

Not really


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It seems to be too detail oriented, but also not long enough.

Lead evaluation
I like the inclusion of the newer statistics, it might also be helpful to try and add a sentence or two discussing what solar power is, why its important and why its specific use in California is worth a wikipedia page.

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
All of your additions are well written and ensure the content is kept current.

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?

I think that the section under History you updated about housing affordability is helpful for keeping the tone neutral by addressing potential shortcomings of solar energy in homes.


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

no

Tone and balance evaluation
Your tone and balance are neutral

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

Yes, no new sections were added but it wasn't necessary since this article already has a pretty good structure.

Organization evaluation
This article is well organized and the content added sticks to the structure well.

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?