User:VUcnic/Water resources law/AdyerVU Peer Review

Guiding questions:

·       Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it appears so.

·       Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

·       Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, although it could reference them more directly.

·       Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No

·       Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is extremely concise, and could perhaps benefit from some expansion.

Content

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes

·       Is the content added up-to-date? yes

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I could see

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added neutral? yes

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None that I observed.

·       Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

·       Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all information is. Some information in the legal models section seemed to lack a specific cited source

·       Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes

·       Are the sources current? yes

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The citations show authors from all over the US, the Netherlands, Quebec, and Kenya (just to name a few). This appears to be a diverse set of authors.

·       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.)

·       Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes

·       Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no

·       Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

·       Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not in any particular way, although it was visually appealing, and I am unsure of how else one could implement an image for the topic.

·       Are images well-captioned? yes

·       Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes

·       Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

·       Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes

·       What are the strengths of the content added? The information is well researched and cited.

·       How can the content added be improved? I think this article needs to be expanded on and given more information.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 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
(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.)