User:Mwill347/Evaluate an Article

General info
==
 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * in association with WikiProject Water
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Water conservation ==

Lead
== Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, the page is titled "Water conservation" yet the first sentence explains the purpose for Water Conservation Day, which should instead be another part of the article, not the main focus.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Kind of... a great sentence in the lead is "Water conservation includes all the policies, strategies and activities to sustainably manage the natural resource of fresh water, to protect the hydrosphere, and to meet the current and future human  demand."Although the page describes some of these topics it doesn't cover all of them, which would have helped the page become more conducive and explanatory.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there is a description of habitat conservation but that is not further explained in the page.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, however there are some things that are present in the article that were not even mentioned in the lead, and other things that are mentioned in the lead but not further detailed in the article. ==

Lead evaluation
== Not the best, could be improved. My advice is to make it more of an introduction to the page, listing the general importance of water conservation and including a basic description of the various aspects of water conservation. Then, the whole page should be a more superfluous and detailed article on those mentioned aspects. ==

Content
== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content is relevant to the topic of water conservation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, although I wish there was more information on Water Conservation Day and some of the great things/ideas/projects that resulted from recent Water Conservation Day(s).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, I would have loved to see more of a direct relationship with water conservation to habitat conservation. This was not further mentioned or explained in the page and was only presented in the lead. Also, governmental policies regarding water conservation should have been presented, and I wish there were more information and examples of attempts to create more advanced water conservation strategies, celebrities and choice people who have made the biggest changes, etc. ==

Content evaluation
== Although some of the content is well-explained and pretty thorough, not all information presented in the lead was detailed efficiently in the article's contents. I wish there was more information to present water conservation as an important and necessary idea/project. This would need much more detail and more evidence of advanced water conservation projects. ==

Tone and Balance
== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there is no sense of bias other than its obvious that water conservation is important to the writer/editors. If there was any evidence that water conservation methods might be unnecessary, impractical, or worse for people or the environment, the content would be completely neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "Inefficient water use is also considered wasteful."might be considered biased, which could lead readers to feel that the page's creator believes that people who don't follow each method of water use as presented in the page are "wasting" water.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is plenty of information on why water conservation is effective and useful, but there is no evidence of the downsides to water conservation. Even if there are no downsides when it comes to climate change and making your life more "green", some downsides could include inefficient funds or lack of resources to create conserving projects, methods, or appliances.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It definitely is a pro-conservation article, and some readers might feel like they are trying to be persuaded to "go green". ==

Tone and balance evaluation
== Although the tone is neutral because it is based on the importance of water conservation, an explanation of some of the negatives in water conservation should be expanded on to balance the tone and weigh the pros and cons of the topic at a more unbiased stance. ==

Sources and References
== Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most if not all the content within the article is cited through footnotes with list every reference used, and all references seem pretty reliable. Most of them are from official conservation projects' websites or from published and peer reviewed research articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, however like I said before I wish there were some sources and information on the politics of water conservation (policies, tax development, etc.)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most of the sources are from within the last 5 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes! The links work and I am able to view the entire source rather than have to pay for it to view the document ==

Organization
== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I found the content easily readable and concise/clear enough that I didn't have to reread any paragraphs to grasp the concepts, ideas, or information being presented.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only grammatical changes I would add is combining some sentences here and there. While some sentences are detailed and pretty thorough, others are just come-and-go, not necessary sentence fragments, but just kind of "fluffed" in there. Expanding the vocabulary or sentence structure could really help organize the page and make it more consistent.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Although the content is broken into sections to allow it to be easily readable, I would prefer for more important topics to be listed because there was not enough information presented. The household applications and commercial applications tabs could have been combined into one section OR they could remain split, but include much more detail for each appliance since all the section contains is a list of what is already invented and available, but no details. ==

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?
 * The captions consist of simply a few words to explain what the image captures, but the image is not further explained or detailed within the text.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all images and captions contain references and are cited back to the original photographer
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, I would prefer for the images to be a little larger so I can see them more clearly, and located closer to the text and a bit more scattered rather than all aligned on the right of the content. ==

Images and media evaluation
== I do like the choice of images you have included, however don't be afraid to readjust the sizes, provide more detail, and make the image more central to the topic rather than just placing an image to provide some lackluster visual affects. ==

For New Articles Only - NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE
== 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 evaluation
== I like the general basics of the article, I think a lot of the information and content added is easily understandable, important, and doesn't place any intended discomfort on the reader. However, I wish the images were placed in a more visually appealing way. I also am looking for more information on global evidence of water conservation, Water Conservation Day, and a description on the appliances and applications merely mentioned in the content (mainly the household applications and commercial applications). ==