User:Bellaruby12/Environmental issues in New York City/Cynthia1u2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bellaruby12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Environmental issues in New York City
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Environmental issues in New York City

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The lead includes an introductory statement however it is too vague; doesn't give brief introduction of the following subsections and is too generalized for readers to identify the main points of the following subsections. The lead includes a brief intro of the following issues identified in environmental circumstances of New York City however it does not have a concisive flow.

Content

The content that was recently added under the air pollution section is not corresponding to the subsections of the section. It is too vague and needs additional information before leading readers to read the other information. The content is relevant to the topic however it doesn't necessarily address the equity gaps in New York neighborhoods and how the affects of airborne pollution are subjected to harm a specific group of people in the city. For the noise pollution section in the sandbox draft, the information is too generalized instead of giving examples of how noise pollution is affecting people within different age groups. This doesn't address the inequity present in the historical standpoint and is missing a lot of information.

Tone and Balance

The content added is completely neutral and does not persuade or convince readers to think towards a biased standpoint.

Sources and References

Previous history indicates an added source however it was removed. In the sandbox draft there is a reliable source derived from a scientific journal entry within a textbook. All information reviewed so far was not backed up in the correct format and only one source was provided within the sandbox. The published edits done did not provide where the research or relevant information of the topic came from. The link in the sandbox works.

Organization

The content is well written however there are minor grammatical errors but the sections edited did not have major points. Information is too generalized.

Images and Media

There were no images added; feedback N/A

Thank you for your review ---Ana Eradze