User:Vansam823/Brownfield land/Mayaworthing Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Vansam823)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vansam823/Brownfield_land?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brownfield land

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
The lead is very strong and has a good introductory sentence. It does not include information that is not present in the article. It is also not overly detailed and has a good amount of information. The lead has been updated by my peer and reflects their edits well. They decided to remove a quotation that is specific to England as the article has sections about many different countries. I agree with this and I think it is a good choice.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. A reliable source was added from Chen et al., 2019 which is recent and would provide up-to-date information. All of the content belongs and I do not see any that is currently missing.

Tone and balance
The content added is neutral and does not demonstrate bias or persuasion. The viewpoints are all equally represented. One of the edits made by my peer was in the lead where he changed “Many contaminated post-industrial brownfield sites sit unused for decades as involuntary parks because cleaning cost is more than land worth after redevelopment.” to “Many contaminated post-industrial brownfield sites sit unused because the cleaning costs may be more than the land is worth after redevelopment”. I like this edit and I think it has a better tone and balance for the article.

Sources and references
All new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The sources in the sandbox appear to all be scientific peer-reviewed papers or information from government databases. The sources are recent and well cited after every few sentences.

Organization
The content is well written, clear and contains no grammatical errors.

Images and media
No images were added but the article currently has 4. Potentially adding more images could help improve the article.

Overall Impressions
The content added improved the overall quality of the article. The content could be further improved by using more sources to reference the paragraphs. Currently each paragraph has only 1 or 2 different sources. By adding more sources there can be further support and evidence in each paragraph.