Talk:Stream order

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Palosramon. Peer reviewers: Nonkululeko Morgan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Add outline of proposed clarifications to Stream Order
Following is an outline of proposed clarifications to Stream Order:

a. Strahler method seems to be universally accepted (citation) i. When citing stream order in current hydrology research efforts and journals, Strahler method is assumed basis (citation). i. Is basis for Geospatial programs due to "dimensionless" quality of graphic data (citation). a)   b. Salient stream characteristics based on Strahler's stream order method (citation)        i. First and second order streams             a) form in steep slopes b) flow quickly             c) have less volume ii. First through third order streams a) are headwater streams            b) are in upper reaches of watershed c) 80% of worlds waterways are first through third order       iii. Fourth through sixth order streams              a) are medium streams b) less steep            c) flow slower d) have large volumes  c. Comparison of relative size of major world rivers          i. Ohio River is an eighth order stream         ii. Mississippi is a tenth order stream         iii. Amazon is 12th order stream       Reference: Briney, Amanda, Contributing Writer. "Stream Order." ThoughutCo, Mar. 3, 2017, thoughtco.com/what-is-stream-order-1435354. Palosramon (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Writer,

This is a great start! Here you have a solid introduction and a clear structure. The article could use more coverage but the tone of what you have so far is neutral and that excellent!

From reading just your lead, I am able to grasp what the topic is about and why it’s important. I went back to read the lead again after reading the article and I felt that it really gave a solid summary of the topic, highlighting the most important information and was on related to the rest of the article.

For improvements, perhaps you could revise the organization of the sections? This will allow a more intuitive transition throughout the content. I also suggest revising how much information is included in each section. Is all the info included in each section extremely important to the topic? I’d suggest only expanding the most important subjects under the topic and cutting back on subjects that aren’t so important? Ie: Expand more on the uses of stream orders, and maybe don’t include other orders since there is very little information on the subject.

But overall, I felt the article does reflect perspectives represented in the published literature. The voice behind the content was neutral which is great it did not appear as if the editor has a bias around the topic.

Nonkululeko Morgan (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)