User:24Okapi24/Bee hotel/NatureAppreciator1 Peer Review

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NatureAppreciator1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NatureAppreciator1/Moraine-dammed_lake?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Moraine-dammed lake
 * Moraine-dammed lake

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.)

First Notes: Though extensive information is included in the sandbox draft no content has been updated in the actual live Article as of yet.

Lead: The lead includes a well thought out description of what a moraine-dammed lake is, but no brief description of what is to come is included.

Content: Content that has been added in to the sandbox is necessary and well thought out. There is most likely some information that could be added or is missing to the topic. No Article should have every singular piece of information already in it. Content is addressed relating to an Argentinian explorer which suggests that this could be an area of underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance: There is possibility of bias in the information though not intentional. Information that was included about a scientific study which could be believed that only one side has been represented. Information that was included was a study on the effects of climate change, which can be a controversial topic. "sense it was a study based on the effect of climate change, the only possible interpretation is that climate change caused this increase is water level due to glaciers melting quicker." Another viewpoint or study refuting this scientific study could help balance out the bias in the section. Another citation may be helpful in this case. It could also be that there is no other study on this subject, of which I might suggest not including this information at all.

Sources and References: Information that is included is backed up by a couple citations. Information in the citations matches the information stated in the sandbox. sources a current. In the section that was updated called Francisco Perito Moreno Discovery, there is no citation in any way that I could see in the sandbox. I would suggest finding a relevant citation, or, if you already have one to include it. In the section, Study on the relationship between GLOFs and moraine-dammed lakes, Only one citation is included. The information is extensive, having 2 paragraphs. Even though this information correctly describes the website, It may be beneficial to include a second citation that supports this information. All links included work.

''The included citation works well with this information, and does a good job at describing the study In their own words. but another citation with another study could, remove bias on the subject, if possible:''

"Scientists are looking closely at lake Khagiin Khar in Mongolia because they want to know whether moraine-dammed lakes' evolution relate to past glacier movements. The study they are conducting focuses on reconstructing paleo-shoreline changes and seeing how climate change is impacting the lake's water level. This is important for them to understand because climate change is an issue that is present and doesn't seem to be slowly down. The final results of the study, it seems, is that there was a decrease in the paleolake level due to a spillover. The spillover could have been caused by a multitude of reasons, but sense it was a study based on the effect of climate change, the only possible interpretation is that climate change caused this increase is water level due to glaciers melting quicker."

This is the section that I was suggesting to include another possible citation on:

Glacier lake outburst floods, or GLOFs, occur when the water level of a lake made of a glacier's melted ice overflows causing damage to the environment and communities. Researchers have discovered that moraine-dammed lakes are the most common proglacial lake to flood. There are a total of 100,000 moraine-dammed lakes and 15% of them are susceptible to GLOFs. With this being said, researchers are working hard to understand this threat so they can come up with a way to slow this data down. 15% of 100,000 is 15,000. 15,000 lakes have a high chance of flooding the areas surrounding it. One of the first signs of climate change is water-levels, land changes, and air quality. This is why moraine-dammed lakes are perfect places to research climate change because of their constant change of shoreline and water levels.

The study took place at The Cordillera Blanca in Peru and consisted of an assessment of these moraine-dammed lakes using remote sensing, GIS, and statistical analysis. Researchers want to stop these GLOFs because they can be catastrophic, causing flooding, landslides, and damage to the environment and to communities living nearby. Newer research and observations have discovered that bedrock-dammed lakes have been creating this same issue and may overtake moraine-dammed lakes in the near future based on GLOF occurrence. Researchers expect GLOF incidents to decrease in moraine-dammed lakes in the next few decades based on topographic disposition.

Organization: Content added is clear and well written, with very few grammatical errors. I would still suggest looking over your text, because there are a couple grammatical errors I found. Content is broken down into specific sections that can be easily understood. Information inside the sandbox does not seem to be in order. The Edit made that updates and adds content about the Lead section is found at the bottom of the sandbox. The other sections included seem to make sense and be in the correct order.

Overall Impressions: content added greatly improves the original article in a way that is both informal and easy to understand.

Strengths- concise and well written content information. Information is necessary and well thought out.

Weaknesses to improve upon- include Less bias by allowing for representation from other studies, Include citations where none, or not enough were included, make sure the section in the sandbox are in the correct order, allowing for a clearer understanding of what you are editing.