User:Akbugday/Climate change in algeria/Glacier Ivy 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Mathilde00
Moonsnail37
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Akbugday/Climate change in algeria::Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Climate change in Algeria
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
(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.)
- Overall the article is really strong and does a good job clearly providing information about the topic.
- Consider updating the lead of the original article so it reflects all of the new information provided in the article.
- In the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section, I would replace the word negligible with minimal (in the sentence: “Algeria's contribution to global warming is negligible”). Otherwise this section seems good.
- In the mitigation and adaptation section, the second sentence (“these actions underscore…”) seems a bit biased and does not seem necessary. Consider deleting this sentence.
- Agriculture section: providing more information about the places mentioned in the section (Algiers and Bordj Bou Arreridj) would be helpful for the reader - such as where they are located
- Water resources: making it more clear or providing more information about why water supplies have been cut off could be useful. Is it because of droughts or dam problems?
- Precipitation: The first sentence (Algeria, situated in a region…) could be phrased in a way that is easier to read. Also, the statistics in the second paragraph are a little hard to follow, maybe consider reducing the number of statistics to just the most important ones.
- Sea Level Rise: This section looks really good! Lots of information, clear, concise.
- Ecosystems: Overall good. I got a little confused when reading the sentence “Although Algeria has 4/5 of the Sahara desert landscape, it has dominantly woodland ecosystem functions”.
- Weather: This section should be moved earlier in the article. Maybe after the geography section at the top. Lots of the information in the section would have been useful if it had come earlier in the article (including, difference in weather between northern and southern region). Also consider adding fahrenheit conversions for the temperatures.