User:Salt.daisy/Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Mnoble13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Salt.daisy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salt.daisy/Santa_Clara_Valley_Habitat_Conservation_Plan?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan

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.)

Overall impressions:
I enjoyed reading your article. It's a topic I'm unfamiliar with, so I definitely learned some things after reading it. I really like your writing style. It was very clear, concise, and factual which is the objective of Wikipedia articles. Overall, I think you wrote about a variety of topics pertaining to the Conservation Plan and provided a good amount of sources. The one thing I suggest adding more of is either water management or water-specific information about the project. I'm not sure how much information there is about it, so that may not be possible to achieve, but that's the area that I think could be improved.

Lead:
I don't really see a lead section (I didn't do one either oops), but I think your intro does a good job summarizing/highlighting the biggest points for the Conservation Plan. I think you could rig your intro to make it a lead. I would add a brief summary of what points you're discussing further on. Other than that, I think your intro is very clear and direct to the point.

Content:
The content you wrote about is absolutely relate to your topic! For the most part, I think your information is up-to-date. I'm not sure how much information is out there for this topic, but maybe if there's more recent sources about the current state of the project, that could be cool to add! You could also mention public opinion about the Plan and whether or not they support it.

Tone and Balance:
You wrote about your topic in a neutral way and I don't think you wrote about anything that you could be super biased on. You solely reported the facts and information on your topic. If you add a section on public opinion, make sure to present that in a neutral way too (though it may be hard).

Sources and References:
From your sources, it looks like they are all from reliable organizations and websites. The sources reflect a variety of organizations and provide a fair, unbiased assessment of the Conservation Plan. I also think that they reflect current information about the topic. Like I mentioned, you see if there's any more up-to-date articles on the Plan's progress.

Organization:
I think you organized your sections in an easy-to-read and logical manner. There were a couple of grammar issues (extra commas, present instead of past tense, etc.) that you'll easily spot if you read through it. They didn't affect my ability to read the paper, so it wasn't a problem!

Images and Media:
There weren't any pictures in your draft. I don't think you could necessarily have a lot, but maybe a map of where the region that's protected. That could be helpful for the reader to know where this is occurring.

New Article:
This article has enough sources to meet Wikipedia's requirements and I think they accurately reflect the information about your topic, so great job with that. You could possibly add links to this article to the cities/agencies involved in this project, as well as to the list of endangered species.