User:CHeeseHater12345/Reclaimed water/Ecologist-185526 Peer Review

General info
CHeeseHater12345
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CHeeseHater12345/Reclaimed water
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Reclaimed water

New/substantially rewritten text
What was done well: It looks like this this Wikipedia article edit is meant to be an extension of an existing Wikipedia article that’s already fleshed out, and you want to add a section on a subtopic that you’re knowledgeable about. The approach here is good, and I think describing examples of this phenomenon in the United States is a good way to engage readers, especially when a lot of them probably are located in the US.

What can be improved: The idea is good, but I think that you can add more information about the current system in the United States. You describe the history of how water reclamation started in the US, but maybe contextualize it a little more with some information about how sewage and water transportation (e.g. septic systems, municipal plumbing, etc.) works. This could then segue into what parts of the system would lend itself to water reclamation. I think that this could be an entire section, and you can add another section on specific examples of different local governments around the country that have implemented this. You mention ACC’s example: this is good, but ACC is a relatively small city compared to some of the other places around the country that do this. You ended by describing a Bureau of Reclamation initiative to support water reclamation; maybe make that an entire subsection and describe some initiatives by agencies across our government that support this.

Added citations
What was done well: The citation format looks good on all of the new citations added. They look like they follow Wikipedia format, and even if they don’t follow the citation structure exactly, the page/entry name and date, resource name, author name, and current links are all still clear.

What can be improved: The first two citations – the citation for ACC and the Bureau of Reclamation – don’t actually link out to any specific pages, and instead are for the homepage of each entity. Both websites in and of themselves are credible, but it’s unclear what entry from each website you’re citing. This may lead a reader to believe that the information isn’t actually available on those websites, and the author just made the information up. The very last citation is also for another Wikipedia article. Even if that article is accurate, I don’t think Wikipedia counts as a peer-reviewed source that can be cited in any literature. The in-text citations also don’t use Wikipedia’s linked citations feature, and instead use parenthetical citations.

Connections to existing Wikipedia pages
What was done well: This addition is meant to be a part of a more comprehensive, already-existing Wikipedia entry, so maybe some of the terms are already linked out in the main entry.

What can be improved: There aren’t any terms that are linked out, and a lot of them could benefit from having that feature for the reader to click to and prime themselves about. EPA Watersense has a dedicated Wikipedia page, which may be helpful for a reader to quickly skim over if they don’t know about it. Many readers may also not know of the Bureau of Reclamation, which also has a Wikipedia page. Another prominent term is the Western United States, which seems obvious, but may be defined in a very specific way for this application. That could also benefit from a link out.

General comments/feedback/questions
For the most part, this page has good bones, and if fleshed out properly, would make a great addition to the article on reclaimed water. There are some grammar issues that need to be addressed (Athens-Clarke County has a dash between “Athens” and “Clarke”), and I would run the finalized entry through a grammer engine like MS Word or Grammarly once you’re finished with it. This addition was about ~200 words, so you still have some ways left to go with this. I would add some more sub-sections, and flesh out those existing talking points like I described in the "New/substantially rewritten text" section of the peer review. Otherwise, great work!