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?

Yes, all information reflects the new content added by my peers

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the direction of the article. The lead gives the direction of the topic it is trending towards, but it is not specifically clear with an introductory sentence.

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The only section of this article is the heading topic of sustainability. Since there are no subsections, there is no brief description.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead includes information that is not present in the article but is needed to direct the article's attention towards the topic of sustainability. None of the information in the lead besides the last sentence includes specific information not listed.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise, the last sentence may not be added as it adds a lot of specific details. Without that sentence, the lead is perfect, clear, and concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

All content is relevant to the topic, much of the content is direct fact and statistics of Airbnb and their relation to sustainability, painting a clear picture.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all content included within the article is within the last 7 years.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All content within the article belongs as it is relevant to Airbnb, their business, and sustainability within and around the business. The only information potentially needed within this article is the addition of Airbns specific sustainability. This gives the reader an idea of the specific things Airbnb is attempting to achieve.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The article does not address topics related to historically unrepresented populations, however, it does talk about climate change, an underrepresented topic. The article deals with equity gaps in terms of climate change, nothing socially.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

The content is extremely neutral and unbiased, easily the most observable aspect of this article.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a specific position. In the second paragraph, sentences may be taken this way when the claim is not biased. Editing a few words and fixing the tone adjusting this biased attitude.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The only viewpoint that could be considered overrepresented is how Airbnb does positively in terms of sustainability. Displaying how Airbnb has negative affects if possible could be potentially beneficial.

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content does not persuade the reader as much of the information is direct fact. The way the article is written could appear to favor Airbnbs sustainability mission. Splitting up the positives and negatives could help deter this view.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Double-checking a few key pieces of information, the information listed is backed up by other reliable secondary sources. The information used is easily found.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

On the working links, the information(the specific facts) is accurate and matches the Wikipedia article.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources reflect the information on the topic, many of the sources relate directly to Airbnb and their sustainability practices.

• Are the sources current?

Yes, all sources are within the last 7 years.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There are no historically marginalized individuals observed within the article. However, the range of authors is immense and diverse, all sources being different authors.

• 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.)

It does not seem there are better sources, all of the sources provided come from accredited and trusted institutions.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

The links provided worked and are accessible.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is very clear, concise, and easy to read. All information is necessary and the way the article is written is professional.

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are no noted grammatical or spelling errors within the Wikipedia article.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is somewhat organized, it could be broken down into specific sub-sections to give the reader a better scope. Other than that, extremely organized and well throughout

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?