User:Hudson2222/New York City water supply system/Carson2019 Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead the article already has reflects the new content added.
 * 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.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant and enhances the current version of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is timely.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. All content belongs and I do not see missing information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This topic could use more representation on Wikipedia, as it is constantly evolving. Needed repairs and upgrades make this article a great one to help update and edit.

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?
 * No, the viewpoints are all represented equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, she included sources to back up her added information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the information can be found in the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, these are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The diversity of authors could be improved.
 * 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.)
 * The websites are not random, but I'm sure there are more sources that could also be beneficial.
 * 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?
 * Yes, it is very clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The grammar could be improved, but there are no spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is easy to follow.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * Yes, there are 2 reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The sources accurately represent literature available 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is more complete with these changes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is concise and also interesting.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content could be improved by continuing with the concepts she has introduced as well as editing the grammar.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hudson2222


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hudson2222/New_York_City_water_supply_system


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * New York City water supply system

Evaluate the drafted changes
The changes made to the article are very well thought out and backed up with reliable sources. These edits enhance the article. Concepts added could be expanded on more, and some grammatical errors could be worked on.