User:UpcomingDuckling/Hazardous waste/Diyadang Peer Review

General info
UpcomingDuckling
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hazardous waste
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:UpcomingDuckling/Hazardous waste
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section has been re-written to be more clear and effectively reflect the new information added by the editor. It features a concise and informative first sentence and effectively describes the main sections of the article. All of the information that it presents is explained later in the article and is not overly detailed. The editor cleverly condensed plagiarized information from later sections into brief, informative sentences in the lead section so the information was retained while simultaneously removing instances of plagiarism.

The new content is relevant and up-to-date. None of the sources are very old, with almost all of them being from after the year 2000 or sooner. There is no missing or extraneous content. Good job by the editor for spotting and removing the plagiarism in "Amount" section. Also, the editor's addition of a new "In India" subsection under the larger "Regulatory history" section effectively adds a large amount of additional context and useful information to the article. The article does a good job of addressing topics related to marginalized groups (those being developing countries in this case) by remaining objective and thoughtful of their situations. The article is neutral and features no apparent biases. It neither overrepresents nor underrepresents any viewpoints. The article also makes no attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

The sources cover all the major facts presented in the article and all claims in the edited version of the article are backed up by a source. The original version of the article lacked many references but the editor did a good job of adding many new ones in the edited version to address this issue. The link for the EPA reference (1) goes to a page that no longer exists. Reference (2) links to another Wikipedia article instead of an actual source. Overall, though, the sources are very current and thorough.

The newly added information is very clear and concise. All information is presented in an easy-to-read form without sounding wordy or too oversimplified. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The edited article is very well-organized, featuring several main sections and sub-sections that divide the information effectively.

The edited article features no additional images. The images present in the original article are positioned effectively and come accompanied with sufficient explanations to help inform the reader of what they represent. The article has no images that could violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Overall, the changes are all of very high quality and significantly improve the quality and completeness of the article. The added content made the article more clear by re-writing some sections, more reliable by backing-up more of the claims with additional references, and more expansive by including a very informative new section that addresses how this topic affects other groups. The editor may want to check a couple of the early references to ensure that they are linked to the proper locations.