User:Karenviera10/Chasing Coral/101Schultzy Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Karenviera10
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Chasing Coral

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. I do believe the Lead describes the documentary in a short, concise, and clear manner. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The last sentence of the Lead paragraph states, "it is important to have insight on coral bleaching and its causes and effects to fully understand the documentary". I think this sentence is not backed up in the rest of the article and should be removed since it applied somebody must have prior knowledge in the subject without explaining why or sounding biased.

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?

Content evaluation

The content added is relevant to the documentary, and it is up to date. I think more content could be added to the article since it only talks about Coral Bleaching. Having previously seen the documentary, I think the director and team information is relevant, along with other subjects, such as the core message of the documentary and a plot setting summary.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

It is hard not to have a biased tone towards protecting our earth. However, I feel like the user does a good job of trying to keep it neutral. There were some sentences that were a little iffy in running towards bias like, "if humans continue to mine and burn coal causing a release of carbon pollution into the air which is heating the Earth and warming the oceans". First, its not a proper sentence, but it also leans towards targeting coal miners in which other attributes could be associated with the warming of the oceans and dying of coral reefs. I also think the viewpoints of the directors and producers were not added to the article since the articled is talking about this specific documentary.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Most of the sources reflect the literature of the topic, but I feel like more of the information from the sources should be added to the article. The sources are also current and the links I clicked on 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?

Organization evaluation

Some of the sentences are not worded properly making it not clear or easy to read, but most of it is well-written. There are a few grammatical errors. I think more sections could have been added to highlight major point of the documentary besides just coral bleaching. I also think the cause and effect sections are not as balanced with content as the coral bleaching section.

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are images in the article enhancing overall concept of coral bleaching and coral reefs. I like the color in the pictures, so I do believe it is visually appealing and beautiful. All of the images have been captioned and referenced according to Wikipedia copyright law.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

This is not a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation

I do believe the content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The strength of the additional features lies in enhancing the LEAD and content on coral bleaching while providing more reliable sources. I also like the addition of the cause and effects too. The content could further be improved by adding more sections describing the highlights of the documentary while breaking down the coral bleaching section since it takes up most of the article.