User:Trentjohnson17/Water security/Alex Prieditis Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Trentjohnson17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Trentjohnson17/sandbox


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

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.)

Lead

As far as I can tell the lead has not been changed. The lead in the original article does its job and appears to be concise and relevant. The lead does contain a list of the articles content.

Content

The content added is relevant and in depth. I do think that the equity gap from the original article is being closed by adding the Chinese policies, however that does leave the USA and China being represented more then other countries. I suggest expanding to more countries if possible, but I understand that this is a tall order. In the original article the "most affected countries" subsection seems fairly redundant as it does not actually contain any useful material. I would suggest expanding this section or just removing it entirely. The last three sections in the original article feel out of place, I would recommend incorporating the information in earlier sections, expanding the them, or removing them entirely.

Tone and balance

The added sections are well balanced and neutral. The original article mentions certain countries situations, but does not follow up on it later in the article which makes it seem unbalanced. As mentioned earlier talking specially about just a few countries does create some bias in the article as a whole. This can mediated by trying to address the water security issue in some of the less represented countries. That being said, there likely is a bias in the resource availability when talking about smaller underrepresented nations, so this may be functionally impossible. Keep expanding and add relevant information where possible for less represented countries.

Sources and referencesThe sources and references added are good. They are for the most part current and reliable. Nothing really to note, good job

Organization

The articles organization is acceptable. The last three sections of the original article need work (as mentioned at the end of the content section). The additions are well organized and I did not notice any spelling or grammar mistakes.

Images or media

The original article contains relevant images that are well captioned and well placed. Nothing of note

Overall impressions

The added sections are well written and a good addition to the article. The article needs some refinement in its content and balance via the addition and removal of sections. Of note, you should move your additions into the sandbox draft from your sandbox, I also made this mistake earlier. Good work so far!