User:EEdnacot/Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant/CristianBaltazar Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? EEdnacot
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EEdnacot/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead has been edited and includes new topic. Well done.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all info in lead is correspondent with article content.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Entire sections have been edited to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Even all around.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, neutral positions throughout.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? oldest article is from 2015, so yes info is current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no spelling or grammatical errors, only wordy sentence structures that can easily be fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No media was added


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the article has been expanded and in sections reworded for the better. The information added is more clear than before, and appears more up to date.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Better wording in edited sections, more up to date content.
 * How can the content added be improved? small improvements on wordy sentences and more sources for the Echowater project section.

Overall evaluation
I think overall the article is better, with the changes that were made. I prefer your wording in the edited sections over the original. One suggestion i would make is to review some of the lengthier sentences, given they can be more concise. The other advise i would give you is to add some sources to the Echowater project section, given that some statements are made but no source is given.