User:Saihaj/Steam locomotive/Shanleighkirk Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Saihaj


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Saihaj/Steam locomotive - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Steam locomotive - Wikipedia
 * Steam locomotive - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content - The content that was added is all relevant and belongs in the article, and helps provide a more thorough understanding of the specific impacts of steam locomotives on climate change. From a quick search, the statistics about the worldwide emissions from steam locomotives also appears to be the most up to date information that is available. The content could be improved by adding more information, however, which would make the section more complete.

Neutrality - The content that was added to the article is neutral, and does not attempt to sway the reader towards one particular position, or contain any biased or persuasive claims. The information does not present any opinions on steam locomotives, such as whether they should still be used, or discontinued due to their environmental impacts. Instead, it just provides a factual overview of the impacts of steam locomotives on climate change.

Balanced Coverage - The content that was added to the article did not change the overall balance of it. While the information included is only focused on one section, it is a section that previously had little information in it, compared to the rest of the article. Therefore, the information that was added did not skew the article towards this section, and actually made the article overall more balanced. The information that was previously included in this section is slightly biased towards one viewpoint, however, and focuses primarily on the use of locomotives in the United Kingdom and United States. In order to improve the article more, information could be added that focuses on other countries, which would make the section more inclusive.

Sources and References - The content that has been added appears to all be accurate, and reflects the information that is included in the sources. All of the sections that have been added are backed up by citations. These references are all written within the past decade, and are all reliable sources, such as a book written by National Geographic, instead of articles from random websites. The references also appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors, and were published in different countries. The references could be improved, however, by adding more sources. This would further validate the information that was included in the article, and would also make the references more accurately represent the available literature. A potential source that could be used is:

Exergy-based assessment for waste gas emissions from Chinese transportation - ScienceDirect

Structure - The information that was added was not broken down into any sections or sub-sections. However, since it is related to the same topic, doing so is not really necessary, and would not have made the article flow any better. Within the one section, the information follows a logical order, moving from the impacts of steam locomotives on climate change to current efforts that are being made to reduce these impacts. The information therefore is easy to read and flows well.

Clarity - The content that was added to the article was clear and concise, and did not contain any unnecessary jargon, making it accessible for all readers. It also does not contain any spelling or grammar mistakes. Therefore, the content that was added doesn't require any changes to improve the clarity.

Talk Page - N/A

Overall Impressions/Suggestions for Improvement - Overall, the content that was added to the article improves its quality. Previously, the section did not actually explain how steam locomotives contribute to climate change, and instead focused just on mitigation efforts. The information that was added therefore provides a better, more complete understanding of the topic. The strengths of the content are that it is well written, and does not change the overall neutrality of the article. The contribution could be improved, however, by including more information and references. This would further contribute to the quality of the article, and also make it less biased towards certain countries.