User:Sameeharashid/Climate Change and Gender/Mykelamo 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? Sameeharashid
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sameeharashid/Climate Change and Gender

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, does not have a clear topic sentence that explains what the article may be about, in the draft, but can see that in the article what was added, which made sense.
 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? "gender difference in perceptions of climate change" is relevant, but the " Women as vulnerable vs. Women as virtuous" is unclear in draft until you read actual article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? not sure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? some content/context missing, It's pretty scattered
 * Content evaluation 5/10

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, but you can tell that the work was clearly by two different people and not a collab
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented, gender controversy could have added more
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

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? yes
 * Are the sources current? 2016, so yes?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no links

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? not until you look at article you know what was added and why
 * 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? looks like they took a section from a pretty developed page and worked on different sections independently

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? not sure what it added to original article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? some strengths would possibly be grammar, some organization when looking at whole article
 * How can the content added be improved? I think if it was a collab it would be more organized