User:Shanell.lovelace/Ocean acidification in the Arctic Ocean/Cassidyrenee 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) Shanell.lovelace
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shanell.lovelace/Ocean acidification in the Arctic Ocean

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been updated with a new picture and making it more concise and clear for the reader regarding the essay topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes the lead includes the sections of the effect of sea ice on ocean acidification and the effects of ocean acidification on sea animals.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise, a brief description of the topic and what is to come in the next topics.

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, it is neutral. some of the previous content presents a position and can be re-wored to sound more like an encyclopedia page.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * more sources need to be used. a few claims are not linked to articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe that they do. The articles are linked to peer reviewed scientific literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * the majority of sources are from 2008 and beyond.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Easy to read- the article was flagged for sounding like a personal essay and not an encyclopedia page. I would make sure that the authors revise some of the sentence structure. For example defining the word truncated is unneeded.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some grammar needs to be fixed. It's the early point in the process of creating the draft.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the topic is well organized, a new sub-section was added which helped aid in the organization of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * polar bear is cute!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * check punctuation.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * only one picture,

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, the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Nice job! Revisions still need to be done, but overall it is good progress towards the final product.