User:Liagabrielafp/Rio Alamar/Kayleegmorgan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Liagabrielafp


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Liagabrielafp/Rio Alamar
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rio Alamar

Evaluate the drafted changes
It seems like there's a lot of controversy surrounding this river that is not mentioned in the article so I'm glad you're adding to it! My only big suggestion is at the beginning where you say "the channelization and pollution of the tributary," I think you should add who specifically is doing the channelization and pollution. Or if it's not one entity, at least mentioning the entities involved. You could even build on that because later you mention "transnational economic policies" and maybe it would be worth mentioning what countries are specifically involved. Not sure if that would be considered "unbiased" or not but I think it could be helpful to be a little more specific.

I think it could be important to touch on the USMCA (you mention NAFTA but I think as of 2020 it was shifted to the USMCA?) and note whether that has changed any of the transnational policies. I also feel like inserting an image that shows where the region is situated could be great for readers to better contextualize the information.

Overall, both the lead and the content in general look great -- the information was so minimal beforehand that adding anything is incredibly beneficial. You also added several references (when the article previously had none) which is great! My only other suggestion is for your last sentence: "Furthermore eight parks and no libraries surround a 2010 demographic of 39,217." It's a bit awkward so I would try rewording it. Maybe "The 39,217 people in the area as of 2010 have close access to only eight parks, and no libraries."