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.