User:Nbrint/Elinf5/Nbrint Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Elisa Fixin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Elinf5/Drinking water quality in the United States


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Drinking water quality in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article has not been edited in the lead, the information was included in already formed headings. Four subheading sections were added too from the original article. Each edit was a paragraph or so, I think that is a great amount that is organized and evenly distributed. One heading was created named, unregulated contaminant monitoring. I thought this was a good add because I was wondering about the process when I reviewed the original text. She clearly explains the process in her edit. All her content was up to date and each citation was published recently. The content is neutral throughout, and indicates no bias. The citations were all good, they were referencing the EPA and other credible sources. I checked them all and each was working and was appropriate.There could be a little bit more diversity of sources, Maybe a peer reviewed paper. The content was easy to read and well written. The lengths of her edits and the information she used was very organized and well done. I did not have a difficult time understanding her information. There were no spelling or grammatical errors in her edits. Overall, The only things I would suggest to add to the article, would be maybe in the lead somewhere if you are not meeting the word limit. If you have met the word limit, I would add a few photos and cite them from a peer reviewed journal to add to source diversity. I thought you did a great job otherwise! I thought it was neat that you expanded upon the unregulated contaminant monitoring and its process.