User:Oscott101/San Joaquin Valley/Bh0217 Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?
Priscilla

Link to draft you’re reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oscott101/San_Joaquin_Valley

Content
Content is relevant, up-to-date, and belongs to the article. The passage does not deal with equity gaps, though I would not expect it to because it is going over a health issue.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral and viewpoints feel balanced, though it may be possible that wording may be slightly persuasive that asthma is a major issue in the San Joaquin Valley (passage should mainly point out clear effects from asthma in the county).

Sources and References
The content is backed up with proper sources that work. However, it is a little difficult to exactly pinpoint what source corresponds to which sentence (could be fixed by using the citation function in the editing options).

Organization
The content is well organized and does not have many grammatical errors (only thing I caught is wrong “effect” in the title), but it could be more concise and stylistically consistent with the rest of the current article.

Overall Impressions
Everything that’s needed is provided and sources are used well. This would definitely improve the article in its final form. All I can say to improve is to keep adding more (if there’s more you want to or are able to add), embed citations (looks like [#]), and improve the “flow” of the passage.

Whose work are you reviewing?
Luke

Link to draft you’re reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oscott101/San_Joaquin_Valley

Content
Content is relevant and belongs to the article. I cannot entirely judge if it is up to date because there is only 1 source and it is from 2010. The passage does not deal with equity gaps, though I would not expect it to because it is going over a health issue.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral. However, it is hard to tell if all viewpoints are being represented because the passage does not look complete.

Sources and References
The source that was used seems reliable, though it is possible it could be out of date. The source is not directly linked and cited using Wikipedia’s format.

Organization
The content is well organized and does not have grammatical errors, though it can go more in depth to become more organized.

Overall Impressions
The strength of this passage is that for what is there, it is strongly written. The only thing that I can say is to add more content in different aspects about fishing and health and to dive deeper into mercury contamination in fish.