User:Abbyfah/Cultural eutrophication/Devlin Vong 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? (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?
 * The lead has been updated, reflecting more recent content along with more information regarding the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentences have been relatively unchanged but regardless concisely describe the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead has a briefly describes agriculture and raw sewage.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead expands further on the main topics of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, conveying information utilizing proper and easy to understand sentences.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content expands on the information present.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is of more recent works.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content added is proper but there is still much that needs to be improved overall within the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is of neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no biases within the article, only neutral facts regarding the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All the main points are represented equally throughout the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added maintains a neutral point of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the new content is sourced well.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are functional and relevant for further research
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent source is from 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links are functional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is concise and easy to read, not dragging too long on its points.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not seem to have any major errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Ideas are well organized and its major points are properly expressed.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains 1 picture, not very relevant
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Images are captioned properly.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the image is within regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is not very appealing.

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?
 * The article does meet the notability requirements sourcing well over 3 secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The article is relatively new but it does have multiple sources for further analysis.
 * 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?
 * The article contains a long introductory segment, followed by two small subsections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article does link to multiple other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added improves the article greatly, providing expanded insight on multiple topics. All though the added information is great, the article is still far from complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content added much needed information on the article, expanding on smaller points.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added is extremely valued, however new points may need to be added for the article to properly develop.