Talk:Vulnerable waters

Peer-review
Great article! Well done! The lead section is easy to understand and not repetitive with respect to the other sections. It offers a good overview of what the subject is and why it is important. There are two main comments that I have for the lead section: (1) To integrate the third "paragraph", which is only a sentence, as a parenthesis like so - (e.g. agricultural practices, dam operation and housing development) - into some earlier mentions of the role of human activities. This way it is not a stand-alone sentence, which does not follow from the previous paragraph. (2) The message of the last sentence in the lead section is insufficient - "the ecosystem services have been calculated", but what was the outcome? Why is it important to state this information in the lead section?

The article has a clear structure, it is balanced, neutral and statements are backed up by reliable sources.

A general comment is to read it over once again and work through the typos: repetitions (e.g. lead section, 2nd paragraph "president President"), add some "the" where they are missing, put corresponding punctuation marks after citations, as well as commas when enumerating (see section 1.2 paragraph 4 " includes kettle holes, potholes. vernal pools, playas lake"), correct the plural forms (e.g."bacterias"(section 3) and "statues"(section 2)), use the verbal form of "loss" in section 1.2, paragraph 1, sentence 5.

There also seems to be issues related to the error in the References section "Check date values in" (1st reference), and the linking to other Wikipedia articles.

Cheers --SnoogyWoogy (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maida's peer review
Very detailed, neutral and comprehensive writing on the topic. Well organized, and well cited.

I had a couple of suggestions: 1) The first paragraph has a couple of big words that are probably unfamiliar to a lot of people (including me). "Ephemeral", "intermittent", "headwater" ... I know it would be difficult to define all of these while also trying to define vulnerable waters, but maybe you could at least provide the definition of 'headwater position' in the second sentence? Also, if intermittent and ephemeral are different, then I would make this distinction in the first sentence by saying "... Vulnerable waters refer to geographically-isolated wetlands and to ephemeral OR intermittent streams.." 2) Starting with sentence #2 in the second paragraph, I would suggest that the topic of legislation and politics regarding vulnerable waters be moved to another area of the article. It seems a bit out of place right in the middle of the introduction. And if you decide to talk about legislation, I would consider talking about other regions/countries of the world if possible (rather than just the U.S.) The third paragraph, however, is great for the introduction as it explains clearly the roles of these waters. Maybe a good second paragraph? 3) Under the section on GIWs, I would maybe suggest that non-floodplain wetlands be another sub-section if they do indeed have special characteristics under GIWs.

Maida h4 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)