User:CONeal19/Floodplain restoration/ChaseTerry548440 Peer Review


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CONeal19


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CONeal19/Floodplain_restoration


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floodplain_restoration

Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)

I am using wikipedia template to do a peer review on the article.

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

- yes

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

- yes all the paragraphs that are added in fact have a strong lead sentence.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

- yes

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

- nope

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

- it is quick to the point and provides good detail.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

-yes, I enjoyed reading what you had currently about passive and active regime and restoration.

Is the content added up-to-date?

-yes, A few of the references are older but still good.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

-I can't find anything that is missing but everything that has been written has belonged.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

-yes! Very neutral and easy to digest material written!

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

-no.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- no, so far everything that has been mentioned have been evenly.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

-no.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

- some of the sentences have only one citation while some have multiple.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

- yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

- yes

Are the sources current?

- like I mentioned above the references are relatively new with only a few being a little bit old but they are still relevant.

Check a few links. Do they work?

- yes they work!

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- very clear and easy to digest.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

- after reading it through a few times, I cannot find anything grammatically wrong. (Sorry if I didn't catch anything!)

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

- Yes this is a strong point that I want to stress! very well organized!

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

- So far there is 10 source I see and as this project is grown im sure more literature will be added.

Overall impressions

Fantastic, Great read and fun to go through and very informative.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Some sentences such as sentence 1 in the second paragraph might need a source. If it doesn't ignore what I have to say. Also I would have loved to see more information added to the vegetation restoration section!

What are the strengths of the content added?

- extremely organized, well written, and enjoyable to read.

How can the content added be improved?

Maybe a little bit of bulking to each of the paragraphs presenting would help, and maybe finding more sources to back up some sentences but other than that I don't have anything else to offer as a peer.

ChaseTerry548440 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Chase Terry