User talk:Emmaboiano/sandbox

Hi Emma, Overall I think what you've added to this article has definitely been helpful in fully understanding ecological sanitation. There were just a few spelling and grammar mistakes that I have fixed for you. I think one addition that could further the quality of your submission would be explaining the controversy a little bit more. Other than that, I think it was great! Natgorman (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) emmaaboiano Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Emmaboiano/sandbox Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes 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 Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? clear and concise, helps to understand topic Lead evaluation very good Content[edit] 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? no Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, addresses third world countries Content evaluation good 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? no, neutral Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no Tone and balance evaluation good Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 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? yes Check a few links. Do they work? yes, working and relevant Sources and references evaluation good Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, very easy to read Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? only minor ones that have been fixed Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes Organization evaluation good Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- no images

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes Are images well-captioned? not included Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

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? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, furthers understanding of the topic What are the strengths of the content added? highlights aspects of topic that were not discussed in original article, very concise and comprehensive. How can the content added be improved? expand on the controversy, add media Overall evaluation - very helpful and well-written, good work! Natgorman (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree your article is very well rounded I had the same concerns as your other peer review of just checking the grammatical and spelling issues. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittoriafalsone (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)