User:Mkerns11/Water politics/VUcnic Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * 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? Seems a little overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all info is on topic, relevant, and timely.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. There are multiple mentions of the impact of water politics on underrepresented communities.

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.
 * 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.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * 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.) There seem to be a lot of good sources for water politics in a variety of geographic regions on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22water+politics%22&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&group=none&refreqid=search%3Ae68b5cdf87f592d612e1fd770dbbb2a2
 * 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? First sentence seems a little awkward. I’d change “, for more individuals” to just “because more individuals.” I’d also remove “served to exacerbate” to just “exacerbated.”  Also I think you are missing a word at the end.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Need a comma between “Organization” and “in” and after “UNICEF.”
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Could possibly break it down into regions.

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.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. It looks really cool.



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? It’s very current and addresses major problems of the present, like the COVID-19 pandemic. It also discusses issues regarding underrepresented communities well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add some specific examples of laws or politicians mentioning water.