User:AvonnaPollard22/Psychological impact of climate change/PsychgirlTYTY 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?

(Avonna Pollard)

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AvonnaPollard22/Psychological impact of climate change - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Psychological impact of climate change - Wikipedia

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:

The lead is updated to reflect the article's main topics by the editor. The article introduces the information in a clear and concise manner. The article breaks down the subplots of the topics. It prepares the reader for a greater understanding of the topic. My suggestion would go back and see if anything else can be added regardless of how well it fits now.

Content:

The content is up to date and of this century. It has information that is very diverse and can be tied to different viewports. There is no content that does not belong. The content does represent the theme very well and I appreciate the effort provided by the editor.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article is very neutral and included topics I find interesting. I like that the editor added Children, Mental Health, and other specific topics based on the main one. It made the tone more unique and engaging to the viewer. It catches the attention span of our generation. The generation that happens to like TikTok videos and shorts on YouTube.

Sources: The source material is reliable. It has new sources from this century and information that is pretty much new. It is a theme or concept that is very reliable. My only suggestion would to make sure they are secondary sources. The laws of Wiki Edu and our professor need us to be in line. Due to that fact, I know I have to make some edits to mine as well.

Overall Impressions: I liked this article. I feel that the editor did a great job. I would just check the standards, sources, and grammar, (even though I did not see a major issue there) to make sure the article stays in good shape like it already is.