User:CristianBaltazar/Cache Creek (Sacramento River tributary)/EEdnacot Peer Review

Peer review
This is where I have completed my peer review exercise utilizing the provided template.

General info

 * I am reviewing work by Cristian Baltazar (CristianBaltazar)
 * Link to draft under review: User:CristianBaltazar/sandbox
 * Link to original article: Cache Creek (Sacramento River tributary)

Lead evaluation
The Lead has not been edited to reflect the new content that you've added. A clear and concise introductory sentence describing Cache Creek and sentences describing the article's major sections will better allow viewers to generally understand your topic in one take. Currently, the Lead only consists of a sentence stating what Cache Creek is.

Content evaluation
The content added about mercury is relevant and up to date. In your edit about mercury levels at Cache Creek, "Quicksilver" is not another "form" of elemental mercury, however that is another name for it. Instead of "In the past few decades," I suggest you substitute it with a specific date(s) seeing that others may read this in the future. It would be beneficial to list or link the mines that are still releasing mercury. In the last sentence of that section

Under "History", the mention of the Cache Creek blockage north of Rumsey can be summarized in a concise manner without the use of the long quote. The "Geography" section is broken up into many points that can be grouped up into paragraphs. As this section describes the flow and direction of the creek, an image can be used to reveal some portion of this information instead.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral, however the content can be edited to be more concise as it feels mildly conversational as opposed to academic. The information is not biased.

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by reliable sources. The sources are current and the links are working. Some sources, however, only provide the abstract of some articles as opposed to the whole document, so it is not widely available.

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and organized, however it can be edited to be more concise and academic as opposed to conversational. Additionally, mercury does not have to be capitalized at all times throughout the section you added.

Images and Media
Images and media were not added

Overall evaluation
The content added improves understanding of ecological harm that is incurred due to mercury levels. Overall, the content can be improved by using more concise and academic language. Additionally, ensure that sources used include articles that are widely available to the public.