User:Weilh/Land Change Science/Siperez 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?

Weilh

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Weilh/Land Change Science

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

• Overall, a comprehensive overview of interesting topic, and the subject of the article is provided in a clearly written, neutral manner. The introductory sentence clearly defines the concept. The lead provides a useful overview of land change science, but could incorporate some of the other topics discussed in the article (e.g., origin, disciplinary influences, etc.).
• The references are reputable and current, and are all from peer-reviewed academic or government agency sources. All citations have active hyperlinks, allowing readers to easily click through to the source.
• The Origin and Influences sections cover related material about the history and disciplinary influences of land change science. Since these sections are both on the shorter side, you could consider combining them.
• The text of the article is consistent with the sources and accurately reflects their content. However, some of the content is close paraphrasing of the cited sources and reads as such. For example, the first two lines are quite similar to the cited source both in terms of the sentence structure and word choice. Make sure to fully paraphrase your source material.
• The included remote sensing image provides a helpful example to illustrate the kinds of data and issues that land change science encompasses.
• Consider adding specific examples of land change science applications and research into the article, which may help to further highlight the importance of this discipline. For example, piggybacking on the satellite image of Amazonian deforestation, you could discuss how land change science evaluates spatial patterns of deforestation hot-spots.