User:Karlaviera10/Physical water scarcity/Karenviera10 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? (Karlaviera10)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Physical water scarcity

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, my peer added a sentence in order to introduce to the upcoming sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence in physical scarcity is explained thoroughly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of each of the major sections that are presented.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead includes information that is not present in the article which add to fully understand the sections that were added.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead provides the necessary information to fully comprehend the topic of physical scarcity. There is information that is detailed in order to have a full insight on the topic, but it is much more on the concise part.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content that was added is relevant to the topic. The content added further explains physical scarcity by adding the major section of what is the "clean water crisis" and "Causes & Effects."
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date. The references are from the year 2000 and on.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing or content that does not belong since the information provided for "Clean Water Crisis" and "Causes & Effects," which is enough for a general understanding on the topic.

Content evaluation
The content provided is all essential to the article to get a general understanding on the topic and is up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral since it is all factual information
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims present that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position since all the information is based on factual evidence.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Each section added by my peer helps have a general understanding
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content present does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor a specific postion.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that is provided by my peer is all stated in a neutral standpoint.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The new content provided by my peer is all backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that are cited properly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are linked are mainly scientific articles that reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are all current since they date from the year 2000 onwards.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links provided all work properly.

Sources and references evaluation
The content added is all factual and reliable. The content is backed up by secondary sources of information that are up to date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is all well-written since my peer made sure to make it clear, concise, and easy to read with references to back up the content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content presented does not show 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?
 * The content is well-organized into headings "Clean Water Crisis" and "Causes & Effects" which clearly outline the information presented in each section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images included by my peer really enhance the understanding of the topic and brings awareness on how sever this crisis is.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are all well-captioned and help understand the information that is presented.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations since they were added from Wikipedia's stock images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images added by my peer were all laid out in a visual appealing way in which they are seen to the right of the information that is being stated.

Images and media evaluation
The images help the audience further understand the topic that is being presented and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?
 * The content added definitely improved the overall quality of the article since previous to the additions, the article was very vague and incomplete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that the information really helps the audience obtain the knowledge needed on this topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by adding infographic images that can provide information presented in a visual way since a lot of people are visual learners.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content that was added by my peer provides great information that aid the audience to have the necessary knowledge to understand the clean water crisis and its causes and effects. The content added adds to the topic of physical scarcity and really helps being more awareness and shine light on this topic.