User:FelixMH60/Water quality law/Monica.Keim 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? FelixMH60
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:FelixMH60/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not reflecting the new content added, but provides a better written Lead than before.
 * 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? Only section not mentioned is "Around the world" providing a note about global context
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not that I can tell
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Well written!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Unsure - removed part of a section with an unclear note "Canadian water quality laws did not work." Not sure if they are referencing the link or if there is information about Canadian law that should be clarified on...
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Would be beneficial to speak of water quality from an environmental perspective to add to the mainly human-centric details on water quality law that are already present.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. Perhaps it would also be good to add details on human access to drinking water or the margins of folks who aren't protected by global water quality laws (showing limitations of the topic).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not necessarily
 * 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? Yes. Well, except the Lead has newly linked pages but no sources within.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No. They are legal documents.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Absolutely.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only one grammatical error: "Additionally, these laws provide regulations on the alteration of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological characteristics of water resources, may also reflect efforts to protect aquatic ecosystems more broadly."
 * "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


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

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Article now starts out with a more concise Lead and there are more resources for Acts related to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? As stated above, I think it would be helpful to have some non-human-centric content for water quality law, or to discuss limitations of global water quality law as far as human access to safe drinking water is concerned.