User:AvOsero/Freshet/Fuchs190 Peer Review

General info
AvOsero
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:AvOsero/Freshet
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Freshet

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has not been updated from what I can tell, but I'm not sure this is necessary, since you are adding to an article and not creating a new one. Additionally, I don't think you add any new sections that are not already reflected in the current lead. I think the current lead section is good.

The content added is relevant to the topic. It seems up-to-date. I appreciate that most of what you added are expansions of what was already there, making the current article clearer. I think you could expand a little bit on the idea that some species are affected more than others, as this seems potentially important to the topic. When you discuss some of the floods caused by freshets in the "History" section, I think you could provide their initial depths (before the floods) so the reader has a reference point to compare the flooding to. Your draft as it is written does not address any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but I'm not sure how relevant this is to your topic. For example, are there areas where agriculture or housing are affected due to the floods you mentioned?

The content added is neutral. However, you don't provide any counterclaim to your Norway study example. For example, are there cases in which animals were affected in a different way? In general, I don't think any viewpoints are biased or overrepresented. You talk a lot about floods, but I don't think this is a bad thing since that seems especially relevant. Maybe you could discuss some other effects as well?

Most claims are backed up by references, although I would go through again and add where you can. I think you could back up nearly every claim with a reference, even if you find yourself reusing the same references. The references that you do have seem reliable, as some are old and some are new (which I think is a good thing, representing the breadth of the field). Links seem to be working.

The added content is very well-written (clear, concise, and easy to read). I think everything flows together really well and is clearly pertinent to this class. I did not find any grammar or spelling mistakes.

No images or media were added.

Overall, I think this is a great first draft. You expand on the current article in a meaningful way, adding information that aids in understanding. I think with only a few small edits, this could be ready to go.