User:Nidazia/Air pollution in Canada/Nkaba224 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nidazia


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_pollution_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1009115555


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Air pollution in Canada

Evaluate the drafted changes
The topic sentence clearly describes the thesis of the whole article. The article is very well organized. From the description to the conclusion, the article's structure is excellent. As such, there is a lot that can be gained from reading the article. The general view of the article is that it is an absorbing article. The extensive research that has been presented in the article is also uncunning. Being a draft, I commend this article. It has followed the requirements that Wikipedia demands. The requirements are that it has used several reliable secondary sources to which relevant information can be found.

However, the article still lacks a few things to be Wikipedia standards. For instance, I believe that there are insufficient in-text citations to the article. The topic is extensive, and all the outsourced information should be cited. I commend the already in-text citations. They are all relevant to the statements discussed. I, therefore, recommend that more in-text citations be added to improve the research to the readers. To add to this, all statistical information needs to be cited specifically.

The other concern that I have is that the topics that are discussed are not all-inclusive. There is some information that is missing. For instance, the health impacts of Canada's air population have more information and require more research other than from one source alone. As such, the article's topics should be expanded to include extensive research on the topics.

On the sources presented in the article, they are too shallow. The sources need to include all research on the topic. The content is written does reflect o the citation. That is why I consider it as being shallow. The statistics presented by the article are not cited, and Wikipedia guidelines require all statistics be cited for Wikipedia is not a statistical website and does not have any rights to present any uncited statistical information.

As for the organization of the article, it is great and awesome that is commendable. In general, the article is great and only needs a few adjustments.