User:Tatijohnson1/Environmental toxicology/Jakh8640 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tatijohnson1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tatijohnson1/Environmental toxicology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/1988-article-nepa-past-present-and-future.html
 * https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/1988-article-nepa-past-present-and-future.html

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, my peer did update the lead to reflect the new content they added in.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the articles topic (protecting the environment).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead does include descriptions about the main article sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead does include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would recognize the lead as concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Overall, I would say the content added is up to date but could have been more recent. The articles used ranged from 1999 - 2018, however, I feel more recent can be considered within a 5 year time frame. However, the added content is a sufficient amount of time after the original article published (1988), which is my reasoning for deeming it recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing and the content added is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. No, this article does not relate to underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No, the content added is not neutral as there is difficulties discussed for the environmental impacts caused by humans.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, there is bias mentioned in the lead that contributes to protecting the environment.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe these viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It is possible that the reader would feel persuasion in favour of one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yess, the content added is backed up by reliable sources. The sources used include journal articles and government associated links.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I would say that the content reflects the cited sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources were not current within the last 5 year time frame.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The policies and laws were taken from government associated links which I find a reliable and good source. There was also research articles used.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links provided do work and I was able to gain access to them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content added was concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added after reading seemed to have minor grammatical or spelling errors. For example, in the second paragraph, the word "whether" was not capitalized as it is the start of the sentence. Another grammar error included misspelling "the" after the word "Successfully" in the last paragraph.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down to reflect the major topics.

Images and Media - N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would say that the content added helped contribute to the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I felt that the strengths of the content added was that it is more recent than the published date.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved through spelling and grammar (the start of sentences need to be capitalized - I did not include every error but included 2 examples above).

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, I felt the added content had quality and contributed to the original published article. My suggestion for improvement would consist of spelling and grammar at this time.