User talk:SirLladnar/sandbox

Peer Review
Share the love


 * Your article did a good job of explaining the water quality in Laos and how the Mekong river serves as a water supply for the people in Laos. There doesn't need to be huge changes to the current information on this article, but there has to be more sections and information regarding water supply and sanitation in Laos because there are currently only three main sections in this article. Adding more sections and finding more information will definitely help this article become an A or B class article and help readers understand more about this topic. The most important thing you can do to improve this article is researching more about the water supply and sanitation in Laos and the history behind it. For example, is the Mekong river the only source of water supply for the people living in Laos? As for the history part, it seems like it was included in the lead but maybe making a separate section for it is a good idea so you can explain more about the history. Your article helped me understand how much information is needed for each section because in my article it varies a lot, and a lot of the sections are very short and don't really explain too much in detail.

A clear structure


 * The sections of your article is organized well, so there doesn't have to be major changes in terms of the order. However, when you start adding more information and sections, such as a history section about the water supply in Laos, I suggest you put that as the first section so when the audience reads this article, they understand what had happened in the past and the events that recently took place.

A balancing act

Anonymous Lotus (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Each section's length is equal to its importance in this article and nothing is off-topic or unnecessary because they are all related to the topic of water supply and sanitation in Laos. Instead, it's lacking information, so more sections need to be added. From the current information present in this article, it seems to reflect many perspectives because the article includes many sources and does not try to draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept a particular point of view, which is good because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral. Thus, in order to make this article better, you need to find more sources that provide information about this topic.