User:Hannahgerny/Climate change in Nicaragua/Sozzystar Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
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?
Does the content added have 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?

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 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?
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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Hannahgerny

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Climate change in Nicaragua:

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall: The article is informative and does reflect the necessary facts on the topic! The article could be improved with more background information in the Climate Justice section. Consider including the factors that go into the conditions of poverty in Nicaragua. The Natural Disaster section could also be improved with the inclusion of the specific natural disasters Nicaragua has had to face in recent years.

Lead: The lead consists of three summary paragraphs including the findings in the latter sections. This lead has been later updated by other editors. Hannahgerny added in a segment to the lead about the effects of the coffee industry and the current policy. Since it is multiple paragraphs it is not overly concise but does give a strong summary for the rest of the article. However, the 2022 National Climate Change Policy is not referenced anywhere else in the article.

Content: The content added is relevant and up-to-date. The Climate Justice section does recognize the disparities in class. Explaining the background to Nicaragua's condition of poverty would improve this section including efforts or lack of efforts made by the country.

Tone/Balance: The article is written with a lot of future predictions which can be against policy if not cited correctly. Make sure that any statements that include something along the lines of "will" are properly cited as to not to act as a prediction. The article does not appear to be biased but since it does focus on Nicaragua, the lack of information about neighboring countries gives the impression that Nicaragua is singularly disproportionately vulnerable.

Sources and References: I am impressed with the number of sources you were able to add and incorporate. The sources are mostly gathered from the findings from studies focused on the topic and are cited behind every statement.

Organization: There were a few minor grammatical errors but nothing that deters from the overall value of the article. I managed to update these minor errors. In the National commitments and strategy section "however" is used twice in a row which can appear contradictory and repetitive.

Images and Media: The article currently only has one picture and would be greatly improved by the inclusion of more media. The image included is relevant and does adhere to copyright.