User:Daixue1998/Jin River (Sichuan)/EvorLi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Terry Luan, Daixue Guo, Bao Williamson


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Daixue1998/Jin River (Sichuan)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Jin River (Sichuan)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The first impression to me when I finished reading is that it is really informative about the history and structure of the Jin river. From the article, I learned a lot about the formation and structure of Jin river and how the river was named (history). The flow direction and the economic aspects of the river are also a takeaway from the article.

I like the structure (headings) of the article, which can effectively guide the reviewers to each section without getting lost. The length of the paragraph is pretty neutral/not too long, and the overall article is also in a reasonable length. However, the weakness is that I got really confused when reading the "Geography" section. I guess it's because of my limited understanding of the river. So, as a common reader, I suggest splitting the geography section into more sub-sections, so people would not get lost in the structure and flow direction of the Jin river.

I like the "Jin River (Sichuan)" section. It demonstrates a clear logic of the writer in explaining the three components of the Jin River. The writer provides enough/necessary information that the reader wouldn't get sleepy. The length of this section is perfect, and logic is easily understood.

The "Naming" section is also worth reading. This section is particularly impressive because it explains China’s long history and the development of Jin River over thousands of years. Well, my advice for this section is that the timeline of the Jin river's development could be addressed in a time order. And perhaps this section could be re-structured in a way that date goes first -> description followed for every different date in a time order. So, readers don't have to read it over and sort out the timeline.

The "Commercial Navigation" section, I think it could provide more information about the past economics? like what kind of shipments were involved and what was the profits the Jin River Brought to people before the River lost function, if such information can be found. Providing more details would draw people's interests more.

The "Population" section is so thorough. I feel unfortunate that the Jin River was completely polluted.

Overall, I think the tone is neutral. The contents of articles are based on reliable sources.

Sourcing & Citations are adequate. However, I found out that not every sentence had sourced. For instance, there is only one citation in the second paragraph of the section "Jin River (Sichuan)". I believed the uncited statements are also from one of the references. As well as the second paragraph of the "Geography" section, many statements are not cited.

Balance of Content is great, which means the article only address the most important and necessary aspects of the topic. There are content overlapped in the "Pollution" section with the existing Jin River Article, which the repeated sentences are not cited. In this case, I think it's important to include the reference of the existing article. I think the article could add one more section to talk about the "Ecology" of the Jin River.

Whose Voice is Heard: I think the sources used are inclusive. But I realized that most references are from either the public or the government. If doable, you could try to include viewpoints from scientific articles.