User:Chemofwaterstudent28/Fresh water/NovaKK Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chemofwaterstudent28/Fresh_water


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 *  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chemofwaterstudent28/Fresh_water 
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fresh water

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Lead 

Guiding questions:

·      Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No

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

Yes, it provides the definition for fresh water which is the topic for this article.

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

Sort of, I think the Lead of this article does a great job of explaining what fresh water is and why it is important, however, it does not touch on the threats and challenges section of the article as much and leaves it until that section of the article to go into what these threats are.

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

The content I am reviewing does include new information not present in the article, but also covers some of what is already in the article such as the importance of fresh water to animals and humans.

·      Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I do not know if I would categorize this contribution as a lead. I think this would do well in one of the body sections because it brings up broad ideas that could be backed up by the facts already in the body sections.

 Content 

Guiding questions:

·      Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

·      Is the content added up-to-date?

I would say that most of it is up to date. It does not bring up specific topics that are related to the pandemic and one statistic is focused on 1995-2005, however, the overall ideas are up-to-date.

·      Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think it could go more into the consequences of mismanagement of water on the environment.

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

It does bring up statistics from continents that are usually overlooked when talking about water scarcity because people do not want to recognize the consequences in countries that are not close to them. However, it does not bring up why there are these negative impacts in these specific underrepresented and marginalized communities.

 Tone and Balance 

Guiding questions:

·      Is the content added neutral?

I do think that the overall content is neutral. The one thing I would add is finding specific facts instead of creating the generalizations of water being “taken for granted” would help show this is not a biased statement, but instead factual based which I know it is, but I think evidence can always take away the potential biases.

·      Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I just think the claim of water being “taken for granted” could come off strong because that is obviously a negative connotation.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No except the impacts of these droughts and environmental consequences on marginalized communities.

·      Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

 Sources and References 

Guiding questions:

·      Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

All of the evidence is backed up by a source, however, I would be hesitant to call it reliable based on Wikipedia standards. The sources were not academic journals but instead websites.

·      Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes

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

No, while I think the information added was important, I do think that scholarly articles would give more information on the topic than specific websites that already have an agenda.

·      Are the sources current?

Yes

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

No, two of the sources were by the same organization/website, and they were all similar in geography and wildlife based.

·      Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes

·      Check a few links. Do they work?

All of the links do work for the added information.

 Organization 

Guiding questions:

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

I think that the added content is well-written. I do think it could be more concise, but I do not think it was confusing.

·      Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There was a missed period that I fixed. I also think there could be more active instead of passive verbs.

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

I think that the content added is well-organized. With it being such a small amount of information we are to add, I do think that it would be better added to different sections of the original article because right now I do not think all of the ideas coincide with each other. However, the information would be great to add to specific sections.

 Images and Media 

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

·      Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes

·      Are images well-captioned?

I would like to know what it means by “a recent flash flood” which would help determine its relevancy.

·      Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes

·      Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

I really like the image and think that it works well with the information added. Especially because the editor even mentions the photo which I did not do, and now I wish I had. However, the image does not line up with the text, but instead, is where the sources are which I think could be fixed.

 Overall impressions 

Guiding questions:

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

Yes, I think it adds information about different continents being affected by the mismanagement and mistreatment of water, however, I would like for it to be more specific on the effects.

·      What are the strengths of the content added?

It reiterates how important fresh water is to the environment and human civilization. Also touches on some of the effects that have happened due to fresh water being “taken for granted.” And I think that the overall paragraph is worded nicely and not confusing.

·      How can the content added be improved?

I think that the wording could be a little more concise with active verbs. I also think the general claims provided could be backed up with more factual evidence which could come with the use of more reliable sources such as academic journals.