User:AB.cal/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Water supply and sanitation in Peru

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it applies to the area of my fieldwork (WASH facilities in Lobitos, Peru). On first skim it seems decently thorough, but organizationally could use some improvement.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is a brief overview of recent progress and remaining challenges. While informative, it doesn’t give a thorough overview of all sections of the article, nor provide a sense of introduction to the topic (it reads as if it is a sub-section).

The content of of the article is mostly relevant, with the exception of the sub-section on “Sustainability” as it grows generic and unrelated to Peru in the second half. The statistics are mostly from 2000-2010 and could be updated. However overall, the article does address the challenges of marginalized communities in regards to WASH access, specifically the rural population.

The tone in multiple sections, especially those of “Access” and “Service Quality”, tends to take a non-neutral route in its criticism of the Peruvian government or a Peruvian water service. There is also an over-amplification of the work done by a particular NGO (EcoSwell) without identifying it as an example, giving the impression that it is more integral than it may be. The article also consists of a few conjectural or broad-brush statements such as “water delivered in Peru tends to be unsanitary and non-potable” (which did not have an accompanying citation).

While all hard facts are cited with working links, the sources are almost all over 10 years old. Additionally, they are mostly either reports produced by multinational organizations or the Peruvian government, with few academic articles. A diversification of authors and an increase in academic viewpoints (which exist in abundance) would benefit this article.

The article is generally well-written and individual section headers accurately reflect their content. However, several sections feel redundant or misordered; some may be able to be combined.

The article could do with more images of actual WASH systems. The images that exist tend to have exceedingly brief captions, and there are copyright issues mentioned in the talk page.

The talk page is quite brief, with all contributors being bots catching copyright issues or announcing that the page is being used by an educational course. The article is rated as B-class, and it is part of three WikiProjects: Water, Peru, and Sanitation.

Overall, the article provides good information that spans multiple sub-topics. It could be improved by updating its statistics and sources with more recent and diverse material, as well as reorganizing its sections.

Which article are you evaluating?
Decentralized wastewater system

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it applies to the sector of my fieldwork (WASH facilities in Lobitos, Peru). On first skim it seems to-the-point and well-organized.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is good, properly introducing and defining the key terms.

The content is all relevant and explanative. It discusses how decentralized systems aid underserved or rural populations. The article is not reliant on statistics that would need to be updated, though sources seem to largely be from the most recent decade.

The tone is generally neutral, though at times seems to be advocating for decentralized systems (by listing their benefits without citing a source or author).

Certain sections seem to be written from the contributor’s own perspective and knowledge without sufficient citations, such as the section Regulation and Management. There are certain places marked as needing citations. However the article does have a good mix of academic and non-academic sources written by various authors, mostly from within the last ten years.

The article is clear and well-written. The section titled “Types” could be renamed “Scales” to be more descriptive of what it is referring to (the different scales of decentralized systems).

The three images are cited and well-captioned, though the article could do with more (especially in the Examples section).

The talk page’s brief activity is between a couple users in 2017, discussing new additions to the page. While there was some initial disagreement over what was relevant, it seems to have been worked out. The article is rated C-class, and is in the WikiProject of Sanitation.

Overall, this article provides a good starting point for decentralized wastewater systems. It could primarily be improved by an expansion of sub-topics and the addition of more statistics, as well as more citations where needed.