User:Ottawaotter2024/Renewable energy in Canada/Jmvelasquez 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ottawaotter2024

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Ottawaotter2024/Renewable energy in Canada


Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Renewable energy in Canada

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

The editor did not include the lead in their article edit/revisions. From reading the lead in the original article, it appears that it includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. To help improve the article in the future, I suggest checking over the lead anyway to ensure that it meets all the Wikipedia requirements such as it being concise, containing relevant information, and describes the article's majort sections. In the "Overview" section of the page, I would suggest updating the articles from Resource Canada's "About Renewable Energy" to a more recent article/study. These ones are from 2017 and things have changed.

The content that has been added so far is relevant to the topic, however it is limited. The editor has decided to focus on the the subsection "Provinces and territories". The paragraph about "Northwest Territories" has not been edited despite being copied into the sandbox. Additionally, there are no citations seen in the paragraph as well as there being a [citation needed]. In the original article, there is an article listed as a citation from 2018. For the future, I would suggest finding more articles to support the information present in this paragraph. Also, I would try and find a citation to fill the [citation needed] to help support the information. For the section about "Yukon", a good amount of information has been added. However, I would suggest to try and find more up-to-date examples, as the ones provided are from 2012 and 2014. As previously mentioned, I would suggest updated Resource Canada articles as the ones cited are from 2014, 2016, etc. Also, reference #3 is an article from CBC... I would approach this articles with caution as they could be a bit biased and inaccurate, so maybe try and find a peer-reviewed article to support this. The first sentence of this paragraph is a bit confusing, maybe try wording it "[...] hydropower and fossil fuels, like diesel and liquefied natural gas (LNG), especially...[..]". Also, I would continue saying 'hydropower' rather than just 'hydro' because some people may be confused. One really good thing about this section is how underrespresented populations are menionted, the Champagne & Aishihik First Nations and the Little Salmons Carmacks First Naiton. There is a lot of history and conflict with these groups so I think it would be important to allow them to be heard! For the section about "Nunavut", there is limited additions to the article. There were only two sentences added. As previously mentioned there are some shortfalls with there being [when?] and [citation needed]. Once again, I suggest finding articles to help back this information up and ensure they are up-to-date. There is also random 'm' in the paragraph, but these can be deleted during the final draft.

For tone and balance, overall, it is mostly neutral. There is one sentence in the "Yukon" paragraph that says "There was never a single legislation implemented in regard of geothermal energy in the territory of Yukon before". I would word this differently, it sounds a bit aggressive, maybe something like "No legislation converning geothermal energy had ever been enacted in Yukon's territory prior to this." It sounds more neutral! There are some incomplete topics/sentences at the end of the article - this would have been. nice to see as the topics look really interesting! There are minimal grammatical and spelling errors. Despite there being minimal mistakes, the content added remains in their respective subsections. Your contributions definitely have potential and that can be maximized with good articles to help back up what you're trying to say. Good job!