User:Teddieursa/Oasis effect/DeltaOmegaTen Peer Review

Peer review
A lead section that is easy to understand


 * The original lead section was a good and concise summary of the rest of the article, so I think it's okay that you left that unedited.

A clear structure


 * The structure is clear, and the headings as well-placed. However, I think more can be said on this topic. You may want to add a subsection beneath the "Urban Planning" section that talks about some cities that are well-known for successfully applying the oasis effect. If you add this subsection, you could also incorporate visuals of the cities.

Balanced coverage


 * The distribution of content in each section of the article is fairly even, but I feel that more information could be added all around.

Neutral content


 * Originally, the last sentence of the "Urban Planning" section said, "However, concerns can arise in arid regions with limited water sources where city planners may not want to leave water sources out in the open to evaporate, and may not want to sacrifice water for upkeep of plants." This is an interesting contrasting perspective that I think you can incorporate into your edits.

Reliable sources


 * Your sources are all journal articles, so I believe the sources are reliable!