User:Catran1/Sustainable gardening/Christiandelery Peer Review

Lead

The lead section provided a broad overview of the subject, and doesn't involve too much detail and doesn't go too deep into the subject.

However, the introductory sentence is not very clear and doesn't describe article topic.

The lead itself is also not built up in a clear structure, so appear a lack of focus.

The lead section includes various information, such as the the benefit., that doesn't have to go in to a definition. Additionally, it does include information that is not present in the article, such as design, landscaping, architecture, and the horticultural interests.

Does handle the transition to the next section very well - since the end of the lead talks about the benefit of the subject, while the next section started straight ahead with the product of the subject.

Content

The content is labeled, hence easy to read. Additionally, it includes various aspects.

the content is sites initiative, which is relevant to the topic, but appears not to be the topic itself. As the topic is sustainable gardening, while the content is all about sustainable sites. The article didn't provide a definite statement indicating sustainable site initiative is sustainable gardening.

The content is up to date as there is no uniform national standard for a sustainable landscaping projects as of now in the USA, sites are still rated according to their impact on ecosystem service.

The content provided too much examples of ecosystem services, which is not the main point of the article, but doesn't give one example of how exactly the rating is applied.

The content is only about USA sustainable landscape, while doesn't include common practice, worldwide. As USA represents developed country, the content fails to cover developing countries rating practice.

The content does have clear transition, jumping from one point to another.

Tone and balance

the content added is not neutral and lean more on the positive perspective. For instance, In the lead section, only the benefits are mentioned. Th content doesn't put efforts to address the disadvantage of sustainable gardening.

Images and Media

The article doesn't include images that enhance understanding of the topic. Images are well captioned. Images adhere to wikipedias copyright regulations. Images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

New Articles

The article meets Wikipedias notability requirements by having 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The list of sources is sparce. It doesn't accurately represent all available literature on the subject. The articles does link to other articles.

The articles does ok. I would change the lead to add brief history and modern use. The author could speak more on methods and common uses both modern and historical instead of U.N. Programs. I noticed the article had very well placed pictures and layout.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)