User:CONeal19/Floodplain restoration/Mr. Jotatohead Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(CONeal19)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CONeal19/Floodplain restoration


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * A very positive lead. As a reader, I know where the information is going to take me as I navigate the draft.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Content is very well written and structured.
 * In regards to the original information on Floodplains, this draft executes its role in filling the informational gaps really well.
 * As the reader, I never felt like any information did not belong nor did I feel like the information provided just went on and on. Clear and concise, but with enough information available, so that if you hadn't read the original article, you knew enough about floodplains and its mechanisms.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * There was no biasedness that was found and the article remained neutral throughout.

Sources and References

 * Many references were provided for this article.
 * References were all from peer reviewed sources with up to date information.
 * There was reference that was numerically out of order, a 5 and then a 3. The information was relevant to it's respective statement, but would look better (aesthetically) if they were in order.
 * Reference's #6 & #10 are the same linked reference. They have different dates, but the link and information are exactly the same.

Organization

 * The information and sections were presented very well. The structure of the draft is very sound.
 * There were no grammatical errors that I could find, but it wouldn't hurt to go over it again and get a second pair of eyes on it when doing the revised final article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Missing graphic/visual representation

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * A strong article that assists the original article greatly.
 * The only areas that I would recommend to improve the article are stylistic;
 * In the passive water regime management, perhaps turning that long list into a bulleted list for better awareness or formatting it in a way that separates it from the rest of the text, i.e. italics, bold, underline, etc.
 * Changing the sub-headers formatting. As it is now, the sub-headers (techniques) are more pronounced than the actual header they fall under.
 * And finally, the duplicate reference, #6 & #10.