User:Karlaviera10/Physical water scarcity/Svila010 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 has included an additional sentence to the Lead. This sentence introduces another aspect of Physical Water Scarcity that is addressed in the section Clean Water Crisis.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It clearly defines physical water scarcity and bolds the term to draw the reader's attention. It is a good representation of information that will be further developed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It effectively introduces the Clean Water Crisis section as well as the Cause and Effects section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information included in the Lead is present in the article. There are some small details that will perhaps be developed in further sections of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I found the Lead to be concise but with just the right amount of detail. It effectively introduces the content that is further developed in the different sections of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is very relevant to the topic. The section Clean Water Crisis is directly related to physical water scarcity. The section Causes and Effects includes not only some of the causes of physical water scarcity but also the impact it can have on individuals, their health, and education.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date. The sources are recent and therefore so is the data that was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all of the content belongs. I found it to be a good representation of physical water scarcity and everything it encompasses.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral, solely focusing on the facts, and showing no evident bias or preference.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all of the information is fact-based. I did not find any claims that appeared heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the article focuses on addressing all viewpoints. It brings light to the problem of physical water scarcity and the impact it has on individuals.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added simply states the problem that is physical water scarcity. It simply provides facts and statistics about physical water scarcity's direct relationship to the clean water crisis along with some of its causes and effects.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, after reviewing some of the sources I found them to be thorough and informative on physical water scarcity.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All of the sources are current. One of them is even from this year: 2020. The oldest is still relatively current and is from 2007.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I checked all of the links and they work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written, concise, clear and easy to read. I found the statistics that were included to be impactful to readers. They truly portray how critical the situation of physical water scarcity is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors int he content that was added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is well organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. The Clean Water Crisis and Causes and Effects sections reflect these major points of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article includes two images that enhance the readers understanding of the topic. They portray the severity of physical water scarcity, one image even showing dirty water and the other people collecting clean water.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, both captions effectively describe what the images are portraying.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images included in the article adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are laid out in a way that add value to the article and do no interfere or distract readers.

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?
 * Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements and includes more than 2-3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources is proportionate with the information in the article. So far, it has 7 sources that accurately reflect the subject. There are definitely more sources out there that will probably be incorporated as the article continues to be developed.
 * 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, like most articles it includes a Lead section, headings, subheadings, and images to include all the appropriate information on the pertaining topic of physical water scarcity.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article is part of the WikiProject Water, with the goal of improving the coverage of water-supply subjects. As of now, I don't see it being linked to many articles but as it continues to develop and gains a higher rating it is likely it will be linked to other articles.

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 improved the overall quality of the article. It is without a doubt more complete and informative on the topic. She added two new sections: Clean Water Crisis and Causes and Effects. Before her contributions the article essentially defined physical water scarcity.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The new content she added has many strengths. Ultimately, the greatest strength is the overall value it adds to entire article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I personally don't think the content added needs improvement. As for the article itself, the causes of physical water scarcity could each be further explained using specific examples for each different cause. The article could also go more in-depth on specific areas where individuals are being affected by physical water scarcity.

Overall evaluation
Overall, Karla has made great contributions to the article. She has added valuable information and introduced another aspect directly linked to Physical Water Scarcity which is the Clean Water Crisis. In addition, she includes the Causes and Effects section that helps readers better understand the impact of physical water scarcity, especially in areas of extreme poverty. This new section also directly portrays the relationship between physical water scarcity and the clean water crisis. I think it really brings light to an issue that should not be taken lightly and that is a growing problem for a significant amount of individuals worldwide.