User:Ylim4/Earlimart Pesticide Poisoning/Sl6268 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ylim4, Ethanwon14


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ylim4/Earlimart Pesticide Poisoning
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * (Does not exist)

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Peer review By: Si-Hyun (Sean) Lee
 * Peer review By: Si-Hyun (Sean) Lee

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- I do see a lead, and I think that it is going well so far. I think that the lead is not complete yet, but from the draft I see, the article's lead is kept general, and the tone seems to be neutral.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Yes, the introductory sentence is : "The Earlimart Pesticide Poisoning on November 13, 1999 was pesticide drift incident in an unincorporated community in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley". I like how the introductory sentence contains the key part of the event, which includes the date and what happened in the event.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- There is not a brief description of the article's major sections yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- This is a new article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- I would say that the lead is concise so far. I would just be careful about stating: "The United Farm Workers (UFW) contributed greatly...". Using the word 'greatly' may not be concise for the lead because it is slightly vague and it may come off as sounding biased.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, I can see that the author has added a background section, Detection and Response, and the impact. The flow of the content looks good.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- From what I see, the content added so far is just stating the scientific facts (like Metham Sodium) so this question is a bit difficult to answer right now.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No, all of the content makes sense to be in the article. I would just make sure to keep updating the references section. This is automatically updated by using the "Cite" button at the top of the edit page.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- No, this article does not (or not yet).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- Yes, the tone is mostly neutral, but again, as I stated earlier, I would be cautious about using words like "greatly".
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- None from what I can see.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I feel like there is not enough content yet to judge this, but the content currently looks well balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?-

Sources and References
This section is a bit hard to give feedback because the reference section is not updated yet, but I would assume that the author is working on it.

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written. I liked how the lead section included specific numerical data such as "24 poison victims..." and "150 people forced to evacuate the town".
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. Some minor error: "The chemical is flammable and toxic if exposed, common symptoms include...". I think this was just a mistake, but I would go back and put a period after the word exposed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes, the content is well organized. I would suggest adding a section describing the scientific studies that were used for the detection because I know that EBSCO has a lot of resources for this.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Note: No images or media added yet.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

The first two questions are left blank because I could not find any sources for the author's article yet.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?- Yes, I like how the author put in the sections in order that makes the most logical sense. For instance, it makes sense chronologically that the author put the lawsuit section after the impact section.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?- Not yet. I would suggest using the chain button right next to the cite button to put other Wikipedia links to some key words.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- This is a new article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- Adding a section about metham sodium was a very nice touch. I like how the author goes specifically into the chemical compounds used for pesticides and ties in those scientific concepts into how it affects our health. I also liked how the author included a section about the United Farm Workers. It adds key detail as to how people responsed to the pesticide usage in the community of Earlimart. I know about this group because I also researched about it for my Wikipedia topic too.
 * How can the content added be improved?- I suggest possibly moving the United Farm Workers into the section for People's responses (like creating another subsection). Also, this is just something that helped me for the sources, but I know that the LA Times usually has articles where they interview individuals about their experiences. Overall, I think that the author's Wikipedia article looks very organized, and the topic sounds really interesting.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }