User:Dohanminhtho/Acid rain/Kloth017 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?

Dohanminhtho

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Dohanminhtho/Acid rain

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Acid rain

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead: The edited lead does a good job of leading into the new body by describing human health impacts as a result of NO2 and SO3 exposure. When this information is translated into the Wiki page the editor should still keeps the original piece explaining what acid rain is, because the edited lead does not really contain a good introductory sentence. I would make sure to weave the original wiki page body content into the lead as well.

Content: Overall the new content being added (adverse human affects from acid rain) is relevant to the topic. This is especially true because in the original wiki page it contradicts, saying that there are no adverse human affects because the rain it too diluted. The content seems up to date as well, with most of the citations provided being 2020 or later. If I were to add anything in this section, I would consider adding a historical section about exposure. Are there sources that mention acid rain human demographic exposures- like how many cases we have seen of extreme effects, and of what groups are we seeing the most negative affects from? This might address an equity gap that is not currently mentioned.

Tone and Balance: I would say that the tone of the edited draft is neutral, overall it does not seem to be persuading the reader one way or another. The only thing I would say that affects the tone of the draft is the last sentence, just because it is in the second person, and reads like the article is telling you what to do as an individual. Maybe if it was restructured that sentence might read better.

Sources and References: The sources are relatively current, and are from reputable scientific and peer reviewed journals. They cover a diverse array of authors as well.

Organization: I think that the way that the draft sections are structured is easy to follow and logically presented. Grammar/spelling wise, I think that the sentence in the lead "Acid rain affects human health that cause respiratory..." should be restructured because it does not flow well. The last sentence as well I think should be reworked.

Images and Media: No images or media was added into the edited draft.

Overall Impressions: Overall I think that the sections that have been added are good. They are cohesive, they inform the public and they are supported by a variety of knowledgeable sources. I would consider expanding on the lead section to incorporate the rest of the original article. I would also consider adding another section on cases of acid rain exposures to understand if there are marginalized groups that are more affected to these exposures, addressing equity in the article. I am wondering, are there any values you have found about what concentrations of NO2 and SO3 people are finding acid rain to have- that would be helpful to include to compare to the federal government maximums. Lastly, I would take a look at the sentences I have mentioned to restructure, just to help improve the flow of the article.