User:Vansam823/Brownfield land/Mayaworthing Peer Review
![]() | Peer review
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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- 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
edit(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
editThe 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
editThe 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
editThe 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
editAll 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
editThe content is well written, clear and contains no grammatical errors.
Images and media
editNo images were added but the article currently has 4. Potentially adding more images could help improve the article.
Overall Impressions
editThe 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.