User:Rumrunner3210/Water/Sltannaeemi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rumrunner3210


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Sandbox Draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * water

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: User did not provide any updated version of the lead in the contribution. The peer just focused on the content itself and improved on what's in the content of the article at hand.

Content: Analyzing the Content portion of the article, I do believe that the content added is relevant to the topic. This is because the peer mentions in depth detail of the heading, law, politics and crisis of water. Generally speaking, on behalf of if the article is up to date or not, I would like to think that it is. As overviewing the sources references and its date published and updated, they are generally around a reasonable recent date of about 10 years or so or fewer. Which I would like to presume is still up to date and is not as outdated like per say other sources that could be around from the 1990's. Analyzing the article further, the article does seem to miss information on crisis's like the Flint Water Crisis in Michigan, water rights and corporations and water scarcity and climate change. As they simply just mention the topics, but do not go in further detail. Peer should expand and talk about the following topics, even if the peer briefly goes over them. Thus, so reader has an effective way of understanding some of the ideas and information displayed in the contribution. I further would like to add that the peer should also give separate and more organized headlines to the three big issues the peer is covering. As, there should be one headline of law by itself, one headline of politics or a combined headline of politics and law together since they go hand in hand and one other headline of crisis by itself. Therefore, to give a clear understanding for the reader to properly gauge in the information reading. Subsequently, I do believe that this article incorporates the Wikipedia equity gaps and presents historically underrepresented topics, as it displays and mentions issues that are not just globally concerned or a famous topic, but has and includes topics and examples of more minor/minority cases that essentially connect to the topic. For example, the peer mentions the Flint water crisis and gives an example of water disaster like that, mentions drinking water issues of northern Quebec and goes in further detail of such case, and also briefly goes over Mekong river and its situation in where developing countries like that of the area of Mekong river have laws in placed for water resources that can further help and implement in the system.

Tone and Balance: Looking at the content, I do believe that the content is neutral. As it does not claim to be on a specific side nor states only one perspective. It just simply states the essential information needed for the specified category. For example, in one of the paragraphs, the article states that the United Nations mentions that there isn't a sufficient amount of water available for all. Looking at this statement, the article does not state we dont have enough water, but just simply states it from the organization and its findings it reported. So, essentially what we can retrieve from this example in this sentence is that it effectively communicates to the reader the stance of the organization but ultimately not the stance of the article author itself. Furthermore, looking into the bias of the particular position of the article, I think the article contribution would sway the reader in favoring the side of fixing and implementing solutions on water issues/crisis's and thus, shedding a negative side of things more often than positive. Moreover, I think the viewpoints can be considered underrepresented. The peer seems to show and reflect the knowledge of the topic at an adequate level, but does not portray it to the optimum and max level efforts of the topic at hand. The peer mentions various organizations contributing to laws of water, but states few instances of examples of crisis's and does not go into depth of other global issues of the topic. Furthermore, I feel that the user could also find and incorporate some additional knowledge of the topic. Through incorporating more regulations and services that are geared towards water cleanliness and issues surrounding other developing countries and their struggles with water. As the issue of water itself is so broad, and soo many countries have struggles and difficulties pertaining to the matter, so one should be able to thus, bring a large amount of information to the topic and cover each individual topic discussed throughout in detail. Overall, as mentioned previously, I do think that the article contribution does deliver a one-sided perspective on the topic and could easily be observed that one would sway in a particular position after reading this. The position I am mentioning would be the obligation to improve on the water quality and understanding the awareness of the many issues to the topic. So, that one would essentially take action and then have some additional insight after reading the article.

Sources and References: Analyzing the following sources listed in the article contribution, not all sources are backed by secondary reliable sources. Most of the articles sources are however observed to have backed up secondary sources, except reference #13 and reference #1. Reference #13 is news from CNN sources in which was just a reported stat and not an actual sourced or backed by secondary source article in which I seemed to have observed while viewing the following link. In addition, reference #1, which is a pdf style link and is observed to have not a lot of secondary sources backed up by the source, has only a few sources that check out to be viable and certified secondary sources like that of official journal articles and government approved websites. Moreover, the sources cited do believe to accurately reflect the topic at hand. As the sources all go into depth of laws of water quality, policies of water implemented in such places around the world and demonstrates discussions of crisis's that have occurred. Looking into the sources, I do believe that the sources for this contribution are thorough, as the peer went above and beyond in finding 13 total references and manage to posses a good portion of these sources to be traced back to being fact checked and reliable. In which, then can be shown in the information provided that the literature does indeed accurately reflect the topic covered. Additionally, the sources are observed to be in the general range of current. As, it can be seen that all sources are dated around the 10 year recent mark or less, in which displays the amount of information that is sourced is then not deemed to be out dated and can be considered current. In analyzing the sources diversity, I do think that the contribution has a wide variety of authors. The various sources incorporates authors like that of the UN organization, university of Cambridge, news channel (CNN), government agencies and privatized companies. Subsequently, I do think that references #13 and #1 are both replaceable in the fact of that reference #13 is a news coverage and #1 is pdf style document, in which is not too reliable judging by way of observing the article and its following sources present. One article I may suggest is this article pertaining to water policies and science from Science Direct. I have hyperlinked the article link to science direct for the new and potentially improved article suggestion. Lastly, all sources in the contribution are recognized to have open and gave no initial troubles to open the articles. Ultimately, easy access for reader to reach and analyze.

Organization: The article for the most part is concise and straight to the point, whilst stating and discussing topics. It is clear and ok in terms of being able to follow along and effectively understand what the contribution is trying to convey. The reason I mention ok, as a way of describing the peers work, is that the user did separate the information to small paragraphs under the subsection. However, the user inserted various paragraphs under one subsection and should have just separated various components of the topic and have at least 3 different subsections or so created for the topic discussed. This is so that the reader can effectively follow along in what the user is trying to convey and so that the reader also does not feel overwhelmed in reading the article. Looking at the grammatical or spelling errors for the contribution, the user did not have any visible grammar issues or spelling errors evident. As going through the article, I did not stumble upon any mistakes and the reader did a remarkable job in that category. For some next steps in organizing the information discussed, I think that the user should include 3 subtitle headings or at least 2. As one is just two much to cover for all the water polices, laws and crisis's.

Images and Media: Analyzing the image given in the article, the image is observed to be informative in only one aspect. As, it displays the portion of countries that are less developed and their access to water resource. It still is however, a valid image to include, but user should expand on just one perspective. As going further, the user should display photos or figures of potential laws made and then their impact to combat issues with water quality and other following aspects/perspectives on this topic discussed. Moreover, as mentioned before, I did think the user added a great figure to help explain the topic and also, does have caption that lets the reader know and acknowledge on what's occurring. Subsequently, diving more in depth of the image added, the following does indeed meet the Wikipedia copyright guidelines. As it is properly sourced and placed in a effective area of the topic, and can be tracked backed and sourced to its original author/source. Finally, the image provided does seem to be somewhat appealing. As it is not just black and white, and posses some sort of bright color to grasp the readers attention to the right hand corner of the article. Thus, could reel people in, on the additional information provided and from there, readers could potentially understand in an improved methodical mindset on the topic. As they are retrieving information both, visually in a graphical way and a way of factual based.

Overall Impressions: Generally speaking, I think that the article did improve on the quality of this section covered. As it is not as blank and more detailed compared to the original source. The new addition, portrays an image that is very informative, includes examples of water crisis and covers some additional minor topics that were not observed in the original articles section of topic discussed and posses some in depth and insightful information on the policies of water implemented. The strength of the article is that it provides a really great understanding of the various minority point of views around the world surrounding this topic. In addition, the article is for the most part reliable, as it is secondary source backed up and reliable for the majority of the article as well. The article possesses various sources, that include a wide variety of authors and their vital information on the topic. So, very informative and heavily sourced compared to that of any other users I have observed, and including myself. The article incorporates an image of a figure, in which displays an informative outlook on the topic and its perspective its trying to portray. Now, for the next steps in this contribution, the article should be more properly organized, in the sense that additional sub-headings should be added to the topics discussed and not have an overwhelming display of numerous smaller paragraphs in one section in general. Two sources reference #1 and reference #13 that is referred in the sources, mainly reference #13 should be removed and replaced with a source other than a news source present. The overall outlook of the article should supplement an outlook of positive and negative perspectives about the topic, as Wikipedia articles should stay on track to neutral and not as much make the reader be in a position of swaying to one side or another. Lastly, I feel like the user should also be more detailed when stating some examples of crisis's or events, as plainly just mentioning the events and occurrences may not let the reader in and ultimately convey to the public the message attempting to get across.