User:Oscott101/San Joaquin Valley/Oscott101 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cpediav and PAPRI01


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Oscott101/San Joaquin Valley
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * San Joaquin Valley

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Peer Review of Cpediav (Connie) 

The content of this edit to the article is very relevant to the topic. Oral Health is not a section in the original article San Joaquin Valley, so adding this section will be a excellent addition. The content is up to date as the information provided are current address's and phone numbers of local oral health resources. There does not appear to be any information missing in this addition, which is a very good sign.

In the drafted changes, there does not appear to be any claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position. There are zero viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

The provided content most definitely reflects what the cited sources say. Again, this information that is provided is just oral health resources, and how to access them when needed.

Connie. Overall, I believe your edit is very beneficial to the entire article. I am two suggestions for you.

1: I believe this information can be very useful for the article. However, I'm not sure if you just placed this information in the article, if it would make sense. I seems like there should be some sort of wording before this information just to give it an introduction so the reader is not confused about what he is reading.

2: As I said, I think adding wording before, and possibly after, could add more depth to your valuable information.

If you fix those suggestions, I believe your draft will make a strong contribution to the article.

 Peer Review of PAPRI01 (Priscilla) 

The content of this edit to the article is very relevant to the topic. Air Pollution is a section in the article San Joaquin Valley, and adding this section would be a great addition. The content that has been provided, along with the sources that back it up, are all up to date. The fact that the sources are up to date is critical, which makes this addition to the article additionally stronger. There does not appear to be any information missing in this addition, which is a very good sign.

In the drafted changes, there does not appear to be any claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position. There are zero viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

The provided content most definitely reflects what the cited sources say. The sources that back up the draft are strong as they are very reputable articles, and directly correlate with the message Priscilla is trying to convey.

Priscilla. Overall, I believe your edit is very beneficial to the entire article. I have one suggestion for you.

1: I realized as I was reading that there are a few sentences that seem to have somewhat of a biased opinion. For example, you state that there is poor air quality because of farming that is continuous and there is too much pollution... I would advise to somehow reword the sentence because when you says there is "too much", it sounds like a personal opinion.

If you fix that suggestion, I believe your draft will make a strong contribution to the article.