User:EmeraldJ/Chicago River/Kiarra120 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? EmeraldJ
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EmeraldJ/Chicago River

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect new content added by my peer. It does include an introductory sentence that describes the topic of the history of Chicago's water quality. It does a good job of relating back to the section which concerned the history and issue of water quality. The lead includes information not present in the article, such as the problem concerning the drainage of sewage into the Chicago river along with Lake Michigan. This information was a great leeway into what has been done to solve this issue. The lead is not overly detailed; it provides enough background and details to ensure a better understanding of its history and present time concerns for the water quality.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic of the Chicago river, with a mixture of up-to-date and past information added. For the specific section that will be added into the article, the content does a good job of elaboration, as well as staying within the topic's boundaries and not rambling. On the other hand, I think the content could be split into further sections. The content includes history, issues, and things that were done to solve the issues, so there could be a section for each instead of combining them all.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral, and there wasn't any bias detected. The information given did not sway toward a particular argument or position. Instead, it gives general information about the quality of Chicago's river and its issues.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by reliable sources of information, that does a good job of reflecting the literature on the topic. All of the sources were related to what was discussed in the new content. Some of the sources were current, and the others were a bit outdated but still relevant to the topic. There were no links added.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content was well-written, concise, easy to understand and not overly detailed. The new content stayed on track with the topic and produced helpful information on the Chicago river that was not included in the article. There were a couple of grammatical errors, but no spelling errors. The content added was well-organized, just needed to be split into further sections for better transitional flow of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

Images and media evaluation
There were no images included.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I really thought the content added improved quality to the article. I was able to learn something new about the topic, as well as how to even improve my new content. More information could be added about its history, issues, and actions taken on this topic. The strengths of the added content were the sources used and the conciseness of the content.