User:YaEstamosDePrisa/Petroleum industry in Mexico/Mapping321 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?

YaEstamosDePrisa

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Petroleum industry in Mexico

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: I think that the lead has been appropriately updated to fit the contributions you made to the article. Your contributions in the lead address numerous ideas that all fit into your overall idea and contributions.

Content: I think that your content does a good job of addressing a topic that was not included before. You could potentially go into a little more detail on some of the ways in which the petroleum industry impacts the economic development of a region. It is mentioned on numerous occasions and could use just a sentence more giving additional information. Overall, I think that social impacts of the petroleum industry are very important to consider and that you are bringing up some strong points.

Tone and Balance: I think that your contributions do a good job of staying fairly neutral. In the beginning there seems to be a bit of a negative tone around the topic of the petroleum industry in general, but towards the end this switches to a tone that looks at some of the benefits that come from the industry.

Sources and References: It looks like the sources that you have are strong ones. They are very recent publications and are used to back up every claim that you have made in your contribution. I like that you cite multiple sources for some claims. This establishes more credibility behind what you are saying.

Organization: Things seem to be pretty well organized, and I don't see any grammar or spelling issues. I think that it is intuitive to place your topic: social impacts right behind environmental impacts.

Images and Media: It doesn't look like you've included any images or media, but that could be a valuable addition to your section. If you were to include some sort of image that depicts a community that has been impacted by the petroleum industry this could provide some helpful context to what you are saying.

Overall Impressions: Overall, I think that you have added numerous valuable contributions to the article that will make it more useful for a general audience. My biggest suggestion would be to consider including some sort of image or media because this is something that the article as a whole could be improved by.