User:Abbyfah/Cultural eutrophication/BrdvltLB Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Abbyfah
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Abbyfah/Cultural eutrophication

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• The lead includes an introductory sentence and describes the article in a clear and concise manner.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• The lead briefly describes raw sewage and agriculture sections
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• The lead includes a concise overview for the article's sections.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• The lead is concise, and is not overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• The content is relevant, as it contains information on raw sewage, and agriculture, which is associated with cultural eutrophication.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• The content added is up-to-date, the most recent source is from 2020.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• The content added lacks images, which can be beneficial when understanding the main points.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• The content added has a neutral tone.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• The content added does not persuade the reader in favor of any particular position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• All content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The sources are from peer reviewed journal articles, and reputable publishers.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• The sources are thorough, and reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
• Yes, the sources are current, as the most recent source is from 2020.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• The links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• The content added is well written as it is concise, clear, easy to read, and thus provides a better understanding of the topic.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• No grammatical errors were discovered within the content added.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• The content added is relatively well-organized, as it breaks down the topic into two major points; agriculture, and raw sewage.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• No images were added.
• Are images well-captioned?
• N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
• N/A

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
• The added content has improved the quality of the article, as it expands upon earlier points from the original article in much more detail.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• The content added contains up-to-date sources, neutral content, and several reliable secondary sources.
• How can the content added be improved?
• Images could be added for further understanding of the major points.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article is well written so far, however there is still room for improvement.