User:Riyaaarul/Water supply network/Sunflower110902 Peer Review

General info
Riyaaarul
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Riyaaarul/Water supply network
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Water supply network

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead itself doesn't directly state or summarize what the rest of the article will talk about and expand upon. It more so is a breakdown of what a water supply system itself is, but doesn't explicitly tie in the subsections to show their relevancy to the article as a whole. I definitely think that the added/revised portion flows quite nicely and was necessary for the overall flow of the article. The information used from the sources is quite recent which I think really helped further support the added paragraphs/sections. The article contains good images, but I would suggest adding in a picture about Agua Para La Vida so that the reader can see what they are/do.

I would recommened fixing the wording of the following question: Such projects, while aimed at promoting economic growth, often actually reproduce social and economic inequalities by displacing rural communities and marginalizing indigenous populations. I would recommend wording it to be: While these projects are intended to promote economic growth, they result in the production of socio-economic inequalities through the dispossession of rural and marginalized indigenous communities.

All in all, this was very well drafted. I think it was a good idea to change the future approaches section into two different subsections. The information was crucial to the overall paper and was added in an effective way.