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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ivy2020uw

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Ivy2020uw/Energy in Venezuela

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

Energy in Venezuela

Article Evaluation:

             Based on the reason this article was written in the first place, it seems like the additions that this person has added wants to put more of an emphasis on how Venezuela’s fossil fuels are steadily running out, and how they are slowly replacing it with more renewable energy, i.e., hydroelectricity. In my opinion, these additions do well to address an important factor in energy efficiency, especially for a country who’s known for having a hefty amount of non-renewable energy. In the original article, no more than a single sentence is written to inform the reader about this, so this person’s changes are a very welcome add on in an otherwise barebones article. Speaking of which, I believe this person made the right decision to put most of their focus on this specific section, as, by the look of it, the rest of the article, which speaks on fossil fuels, seems to be up-to-date, relevant, and detailed with its information. Sure, it may be possible to add one, two, or even several more sentences of information that may be hidden in other sources, but that’s up to the person whom I’m currently evaluating, and to be honest, I am fine with or without those additions. Furthermore, I think, based on these inclusions, this person is a perfect fit for editing this article. Now, they may have chosen it for personal reasons, either due to originating from Venezuela, have relatives from the country, or just have a connection with it from some other experience. Even if they have no prior relationships with this article, I think the article still suits them well (if that’s the case, the ethical concerns that rise from this are for another day and time and probably person to speak on this).

Scope:

             Although I am praising these valid inclusions, they could still be improved by a decent amount. For example, just like how you added the fact that Venezuela will run out of crude oil in about 400 years, you could mention something similar with a projection of the future of solar capacity within the next decade or two. Also, when you mention Guri Dam’s capacity, maybe include actual recent capacity data, along with the total amount of energy it has produced since whatever date you state. Adding these two facts may seem nitpicky at first, but I believe that even just the smallest edition, especially relating to data, can make a point more believable and professional. But this all entirely depends on if any source has this available data. All in all, your edits don’t leave the reader questioning why this information is here, or asking things like, “What does that even mean?” They don’t overstay its welcome, but as I mentioned, it could use a smidge of work.

Organization:

             The author does not mention editing the Lead section of the article, and if they did, they didn’t. However, the original Lead section only includes a single sentence stating that Venezuela’s electricity comes from hydroelectricity, meaning that you can add how half of that hydroelectricity comes from the Guri dam, which I would say is important enough to be put in the lead section. Similarly, you can also add a shortened version of how Venezuela is running out of crude oil immediately after it states that it has the largest oil reserves in the world. Doing this would give the readers an immediate sort of “reality check”. How is this useful? It’s not, but I still think the fact is important enough to be put front and center. Moving on, the author added one subheading to the “Electricity” section of the article, which is appropriately titled “Renewable Energy”, and I say appropriately because that is exactly what they are talking about in that section. Nothing more to add, the subheading is used as intended. In general, the edits are organized well, their consistent, they flow with the rest of the article, they’re not an “eye sore”, and it’s what a Wikipedia article should look like.

Sources:

             Fortunately, all of the author’s sources are relevant to Venezuela and energy, which marks both boxes on my checklist. They relate to the article’s heading of coal, oil, natural gas, electricity, and much more. Cannot say much about their relevancy beyond that, they’re not about the history of pineapples or something. Three of the five sources are peer-reviewed, which already makes them at least 80% more credible than other sources. They are detailed, they are professional, they are obviously experts in their field, they provide more than enough data and statistics, they provide sources for their own sources, and they do not tread around the bush, in other words, they don’t waste your time. I was a little concerned about the International Energy Agency source at first, but after doing some research myself on them, I can thankfully conclude they are what they seem: an organization that research energy around the world. However, the same could not be said for the article in The Guardian. I am not saying that they should be completely ruled out of any sort of fact-based conversation, I’m saying that it’s important to be at least a bit superstitious about how prominent news publishers like them obtain their information, as they are pretty darn biased. Now, I’m not going to regurgitate what has already been said to us about how to make sure a source is trustworthy, as I’m sure we all know by now how to deal with that by now. But, from what I’ve gathered from the previous works of the author David Hambling, which is a lot, he seems to know what he’s doing, but don’t take my word for it, more research is always good. Also, the article was written almost a decade ago, so there’s another thing to consider. Moving on, from what you have written on your article, you did use the sources well, however, similar to what I suggested before, you could add more data that has been written from the peer-reviewed articles, which are really extensive in their research, and adding one or two more pieces of information from those wouldn’t hurt all too much, but not necessarily necessary. I was able to find another source similar to your already established array of relevant articles, which is titled The Venezuelan energy crisis: Renewable energies in the transition towards sustainability^[1]. I believe that this (peer-reviewed) article would benefit you as it’s relevant, speaks on the topics of which you have added, is peer-reviewed, and it comes from authors who are not only professions in their field, but are Venezuelan as well! I won’t speak much on the specific contents of the article, as I don’t want to spoil the surprises that wait just ahead, but I want to emphasize just how much it relates to what specifically you added into the article.

Readability:

             Out of all sentences of which the author has added, I like these two the most, “Venezuela is expected to run out of crude oil in 390 years, making it one of the countries that will be able to continue producing crude oil for the future… Venezuela’s renewable energy consumption was of 30.13% in 2020.” They not only perfectly encapsulate what the main points of which you are trying to include and convey in the article, but they serve their purpose well by informing the reader just how much Venezuela has changed over the years. However, in the same first sentence, maybe add an “only” before the “countries” in the sentence “…making it one of the countries that will be able to continue producing crude oil for the future.” As it sounds better and emphasizes the endangerment of fuel in the future. Other than that, that’s the only “error” I seem to have come across. In those same two sentences, I would also like to mention the “Wikipedia accent” that you have perfected, meaning you’re neutral and unbiased in your tone. That goes for the rest of your inclusions; no biased language to edit anywhere.

Additional Questions:

             To go over the author’s personal questions, I basically already answered all of them. If they want to add the additional pieces of data I recommend, it is up to them as I think they are not 100% necessary. For the sources, personally, I think four out of the five of them are to be kept, for The Guardian one, I am once again stating that it is not not 100% trustworthy, but to just make sure it is by doing more research on everything relating to it. To answer the question on whether Wikipedia will flag it or not, I sure hope it doesn’t, which I don’t think it will. Also, yes, you have a neutral tone. By far your greatest strength when it comes to writing this article is how you perfectly hit the mark by adding the information that needed to be added. You did not add any fluff, any unnecessary information, or repeat what is already being said. You got straight to the point, and that is good. Oppositely, to improve on the article, add the data of which I have stated before, but maybe even add a whole new sub-section detailing some other form of renewable energy, or more history of how Venezuela handled their already established energy, or something else entirely. The sources you have (and the one I recommended) seem to talk about other things other than the facts of which you’ve already stated, so why not give it a thought, or even a gander. In all, I enjoyed the edits you have made to Energy in Venezuela. I hope that your final draft will surpass your expectations, and I look forward to the presentation of it in the future.