User:Cole Trinter/Seston/Bridgetcollis Peer Review

Nothing in this current draft of the article was distracting and all information was clear and concise which contributed to the gaining of knowledge I experienced when reading this article. All statements provided in the article were neutral and helped to deter bias and focus on the academic account of the topic as a whole. The sections and lead were extremely well organized and to the point. Each sections represents a balance of viewpoints and subtopics that are relevant and necessary to summarize the topic as a whole. All citation links are accurate and working. Each citation also is relevant to the topic being discussed. All citations are from reliable academic sources that contribute to the shared knowledge being displayed. Overall, this article is extremely well organized with valid and supporting information. In the following drafts the structure of this current draft should be used as a template when continuing to describe the ecological impacts of this topic as well as describe more of the effects it has on natural process of vegetation and wildlife in water.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)