User talk:MadiSalinas1/Rapids


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Are some areas under- or over-developed?

The content is relevant to the topic. I think the definition of the word rapids is somewhat over-developed and takes up most of the article. I think the categories/classes of rapids are underdeveloped. The article could focus more on what exactly classes as a class 5 rapid and why.


 * Is it written neutrally?

I think it's written very neutrally and the author is nonbiased.


 * Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?

The article does include many hyperlinks for readers to click on and read about in further detail on other Wikipedia pages. The article also has two references listed.


 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations of subjects)?

The article doesn't really tackle any equity gaps. There's a lot of information readily available regarding rapids, and there is already a lot of awareness regarding them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MadiSalinas1/Rapids/Bibliography — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadiSalinas1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)