User:AvOsero/Freshet/MitchKrings 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
Lead:

I don't know if the lead was updated to reflect some of the new content you added. Throwing in a sentence or two describing where you plan on going in the page would be helpful, especially in regard to the "History" section. The lead itself though seemed solid and introduced the concept of a freshet well.

Content:

I think the content that was added is solid. I think you covered two very different areas which gives a nice breadth to the page. I think the biogeochemical impacts section is good. If I would change anything about it, I would maybe add in what those mean migration distances were just because as written I don't actually know how the relationship is affected by freshets (does it make migration times longer, shorter?). I think the History section is also really interesting (especially because I'm from Fargo so I got excited when I read Red River Valley!). However, I think you could use a different name, maybe referring to the section as like Events of Freshets or Past Freshets. When you leave it as "History" it makes it seem like you are going to be talking about the history of how it was discovered and stuff like that, which isn't what this section is about. Also, there's a couple of typos at the bottom of the page. You accidentally have "froxen" instead of "frozen" and the last sentence is missing a period and the "The" at the start doesn't need to be there.

Tone and Balance:

I think the tone was great. From what I read it all seems rather matter-of-fact. There also probably isn't too much of a tone to worry about with the specific subsections you chose. Maybe if you focused on other aspects to this topic, such as the best ways to mitigate it, then you'd have to worry about it, but as is I think it's good.

Sources and References:

I think the sources look solid. I tried clicking on a link here and there and some worked fine, but others didn't. One I got a 403 error, so I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done to fix that one (it was for the Red River flood source) and another one makes me log in with my UMN account to get to the paper (which not everybody will have obviously). Furthermore, for that source in particular there's no other info given besides "Shibboleth Authentication Request" except for the DOI, so you might want to fix that source in particular.Organization:

I think the organization of the article is great. No suggestions whatsoever.

Images and Media:

On the Sandbox page, I don't see any photos. Looking at the actual article though, there appear to be some images in the sections that you would have written so I'm guessing they are yours? If so, I think they are pretty solid. I think the panorama could be made a bit bigger to see it more easily on the page itself. I also think the Chesapeake Bay photo could show off what it looked like before and after the freshet in 1972 (if that photo exists).

Overall Impressions:

I like your changes to the article! I think it flushes it out a lot more which is always a good thing. I think a few things here and there can be tweaked to make it even better. Namely, double checking that your sources either bring somebody where they are supposed to go (and making sure they have the correct info present). I also think that renaming the History section would help the page too. Besides that, the biggest thing is to make sure the lead reflects your new content, especially because it seems like we are graded on that in the rubric! Overall, good job, keep it up in this last week!