User:Cconniff13/Newark water crisis/Chemofwaterstudent28 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Casey Conniff


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cconniff13/Newark_water_crisis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Newark water crisis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Guiding Questions

1.Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, my peer mainly added information to go in the body of the article.

2. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

There is no lead introductory sentence.

3. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, my peer did not include a lead.

4. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

My peer did not include a lead for the article.

5. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

She did not include a lead for this article, but her first sentence explaining how this crisis was "3 years in the making" may be an interesting opening.

Content


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

2. Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, most of her sources are from 2019-2021.

3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Since her contribution is only 4 sentences, there is obviously room to expand on what exactly what wrong with the water (presence of certain chemicals etc.). However, all of the given information is relevant.

4. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

There is not specifically any information about underrepresented populations in this article, but Newark (where the crisis occurred) is an underserved community. Therefore, the socioeconomic status of this community may explain why they are having water problems.

Sources and References


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the articles are all from reputable news sources such as, Times and PBS.

2. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes

3. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, they are thorough, but I am confident there is more scientific literature on the topic such as, what was wrong with the water.

4. Are the sources current?

Yes

5. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There is no information about the authors' ethnic backgrounds.

6. Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

I could not locate any scholarly articles about this topic because it was very recently. Peer-reviewed articles usually take longer to be published.

7. Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization


 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Her writing style was very clear and easy to follow.

2. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No

3. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

It is more or less well-organized, but I am not sure if the sentences are intended to all go together. The first two sentences seem to reflect one idea, and the second two sentences talk more about Newark's future after the crisis. The organization would be easier to see within the actual wikipedia article.

Images and Media


 * 1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Although it is relatively difficult to locate pictures to place in Wikipedia articles, I wish there were photos of the contaminated water in the article.

2. Are images well-captioned?

Yes, I do like the caption of the photo.

3. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes

4. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There is only one image, but I do like where is it placed.

Overall Impressions


 * 1) Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the content would fit well in with the "Response and Aftermath" section of the article.

2. What are the strengths of the content added?

The information is its specificity because she added how the citizens of Newark were given "2 cases of 24 water bottles" and the dates (e.g. August 2021).

3. How can the content added be improved?

In order to improve this article, she should include specifically what happened with the water. She did not include how much lead was in the water, and the actual wikipedia article is also lacking this information.