User:Sienna Pearson/Climate change and crime/Msicker Peer Review

General info
Sienna Pearson
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sienna%20Pearson/Climate_change_and_crime?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

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? - The introductory sentence could better encapsulate the findings of the article rather than just pointing out that research suggests some relationship between climate change and crime, what relationship? It would be beneficial to add to the sentence regarding the nature of the relationship.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - It does not. All information stated in the lead is later expounded upon in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is fairly concise, and does not provide any unnecessary information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, extremely. The article is entirely new and it provides a broad sweeping amount of information regarding the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is recent and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am not well versed enough in the topic to know if anything significant is missing, however all the information present paints a cohesive story regarding the connection of temperature, climate change, and crime rates.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does fill an information gap regarding the connection between climate change and crime rates, however it doesn't focus on any specific populations that are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is written very neutral, does not indicate any form of bias or opinion, and is entirely based on theory and research.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All claims are based on research and theories, thus there are no biases or opinions being pushed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe that a devil's advocate position is not represented, IE any studies that indicate a lack of a connection between temperature and crime, however, I'm not sure if these studies exist in a reliable or objective manner so I'm not sure if the counter-argument is able to be supported by reliable evidence.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It attempts to prove a connection between climate change and crime.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all information is backed up by scientific research and studies.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) From what I can tell the information present is an accurate representation of the information illustrated by the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is a decently sized list of sources however given the shear amount of sources on the topic, adding more in order to be more thorough and gather further diversity of thought would be beneficial to the article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current as many of them were published during or after 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by both men and women however through my research it seems that none of the authors are of color. I believe one of the authors is of Latin X descent whilst one other is of East Asian descent however there is no Black, Native American, or Arabic representation among the list of authors. Given the broad range of sources there are on the topic it might be beneficial to look for one or two extra sources written by an author of color.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) From what I can tell the sources currently being used are peer-reviewed and reputable, thus it would be hard to find sources of a higher level of reliability.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do not work for me for some reason. Instead on Wiki, it is only letting me click the entire reference box. On the other article I'm peer reviewing however I am not running into this problem.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is extremely well written, concise, easy to read, and provides a clear picture of what the research being cited is indicating.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down in a logical and granular way that contributes to an easier read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article lacks any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Still no images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? The article definitely meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements given the extensive amount of literature on the topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a decently sized list of sources however there is an extreme abundance of sources on the topic that can be found on Google alone, not to mention across all other databases and means of research that we've learned about this quarter.
 * 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? It feels that the article presents information in a similar pattern to other similar articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is new so it is definitely more complete and improved from when it didn't yet exist. All the information seems factual and is presented intuitively contributing to a positive reading experience.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? All the content is very objective and supported, and communicated in a great way. The organization of the article is fantastic and the writing style is professional and neutral.
 * How can the content added be improved? Addressing counterarguments or contrary research would be beneficial, if the author could manage to find reputable sources to use for this. Furthermore, the author could utilize more sources, particularly written by people of color in order to both get further diversity of thought as well as integrate the work of more marginalized communities.