User:Asiaaaaa2020/Restoration of the Elwha River/PisaJunior Peer Review

A. Neutral Voice


 * 1) You used a strong neutral voice in the two sentences you added to the largest paragraph in the "Dam removal and river restoration" paragraph because you created a balanced narrative when describing what did and did not change after dam removal.
 * 2) I think one area you could improve your neutral voice is in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Salmonid Restoration" subsection because the placement of "after a century long absence" almost makes the sentence sound bitter.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) I think you might be close paraphrasing in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the "Salmonid Restoration" subsection because you reuse the phrase "levels of spawning and juvenile production... comparable to other established Coho Salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest." I would recommend rereading the discussion section of the source, taking notes where you paraphrase, and basing your additions off these notes.

C. Readability


 * 1) Overall, I think your shorter sentences are the most strongly written. For example, your last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Partnerships, research, and education" section clearly state what goals have not been met by the restoration partnership.
 * 2) I had to reread the first sentence you added to the "Dam removal and river restoration" section because it condenses multiple points. I would consider breaking the sentence in to two.
 * 3) Your grammar, spelling, and punctuation are great overall, though I would consider reorganizing the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Salmonid Restoration" subsection using commas to improve neutral tone and flow.

D. Rubric


 * 1) Lead section: I think you should mention the blocking of sediment and salmonid restoration in the lead section since they are major points the article.
 * 2) Article: I think the overall tone of the article could be more neutral, as the third paragraph of the "decision to remove the dams" section paints Senator Brock Adams in a negative light for delaying dam removal.
 * 3) References: Make sure the final sentence of in the second paragraph of the "Partnerships, research, and education" is associated with a supporting reference.
 * 4) Existing article: I think you do a great job filling content gaps, staying organized, and adding to the relevant section of the article. However, I would consider splitting the paragraph where you added two sentences in the "Dam removal and river restoration" section for better organization since it covers a lot of information.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) I think your greatest strength was identifying and filling content gaps, as the lack of content about salmonid restoration after describing how the dams negatively impacted salmon populations made original article feel unfinished and disconnected. Furthermore, you added statistics to the description of vegetation returning after dam removal, providing the reader with a concrete way to measure impact.
 * 2) I think the draft would improve the most by adding to the lead section because it gives a poor overview of what the article covers. I would not know any of the ways dam removal effected the ecosystem, including salmonid and vegetation restoration, based on the current lead section.
 * 3) I think your contributions to this article are absolutely crucial and I like how relevant dam removals are to the class topic of sustainable energy!