Answers cover 1-5
This Wikipedia article serves a lot of purpose for my research because it meets many of the requirements to be considered a viable source. First of all, the first couple entrance paragraphs provide a clear explanation about “water scarcity” and contain no spelling or grammar issues. This is a good starting point to tell whether an article may fit all of the criteria. However, this of course is not the only part you look for. Next, I went over to the “view history” tab, and it was clearly very up to date, as it had several edits starting from March all the way up to August 24th by some of the same authors many times over the course of the 6 months the page has been around. At the bottom of the page it is very clear that many sources were used when creating this source because there are hundreds of references, additional readings, and sources posted. Most of them come from very reliable sources such as Universities, BBC, doctors, organizations, etc. The websites used were organizations (.org), not commercial (.com). The only negative thing I see from this article (in terms of meeting the criteria or not) is that it is not clear who the author is. One person started the page back in March and continued editing throughout that month, but since then they have not posted again. It has been taken over by others. Other than this, the page seems very credible and I would certainly use it as a strong source for background information.