Talk:Restore the Delta

[Untitled]
Devyn,

Overall, I really enjoyed reading your article. Your article, Restore the Delta, provided detailed and well thought out information on the topic. As a reader, all of the information was easily understandable and in a neutral tone.

Organization of the article is great. All of the different sections flow from one to another really well.

In the Drinking Water Quality and Harmful Algal Blooms section, linking glyphosate would be helpful to the reader (if there is a wiki page available).

Lastly, adding some pictures would really enhance the article especially for those who have not been to the delta.

The article is definitely ready to be published

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Devynrom) Link to draft you're reviewing:https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devynrom/Restore_the_Delta

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?

Lead evaluation: '''Overall, the lead was great. The lead was detailed, concise and to the point'''

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?

Content evaluation: '''All information was relevant and up to date. All of the sections and sub sections flowed very well and nothing seemed to be out of place'''

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?

Tone and balance evaluation: '''The entire article has a neutral tone. All of the content is completely balanced and not swinging towards a certain viewpoint'''

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: '''Links are up to date and current. All of the references are from reliable sources '''

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?

Organization evaluation: '''Overall, the entire article is concise, clear, and easy to read. Any ready would be able to read and understand the article. No spelling errors.'''

Peer Review
Hi there! Just a peer review. It looks like you have a concise idea of what direction you want to take in improving or updating the wiki article. The article has headers to organize the of the article, and the information underneath are informational. Your resources are pretty neutral and reliable, which is good! Since it is a draft, I can't wait to see the completed product to see how it looks with the actual article. Zouxio22 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)