User:Daixue1998/Jin River (Sichuan)/Frenchtoast350 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Daixue1998, R.Williamson3, zhengyizhilu


 * 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
(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.)

Lead:

Good start for the lead. A couple notes are that it focuses heavily on the geography and just mentions the other points in the article. I would suggest adding more about the others or removing some of the geography details. I would also say that you dont need to say "chinese:锦江" just the character's would work.

Geography:

Very detailed and somewhat confusing to read. The main issue here is that this section focuses heavily on where the river goes. This is very confusing to read and makes little sense. Maybe simplify it or include a simple map for that tributary map which shows what you are talking about so that the reader can follow along with. I would remove the part about "interestingly,..." this doesn't add to the geography and seems like it may even go against the section. It comes off as untrustworthy and potentially biased as you only have one source on either side of the point. This makes me wonder which is correct.

Naming:

This section is well done and very interesting. The only point I have is i'm not sure that this " (this Jing is the Chinese character 京 which is different from Jin as 锦)" part is needed. It's the only one with it and doesn't seem like it adds anything. Maybe you could remove it or add other ones to the other names.

History:

History is good and has some good information. The main thing I would improve here is the content within it. I don't think pollution should be under history, instead it should be its own category. Instead of pollution i would move the naming section to the history section as it is the history of the river. In the pollution section i would remove the statement saying it has achieved good comprehensive benefits. This sounds biased and almost tries to convince that this was good. If this is a fact i would find a citation that clearly labels it as good. I would also like to see the UN award name and citation for it.

Content:

- info relevant

- content up to date

- missing information about the channel, river hydrology, organisms, plants, etc.

Tone and balance:

- some statements seem biased or could be taken as such

- Some areas are underrepresented, description of the river course was way longer than it should be. (Over shadowed other sections)

- no attempt to persuade readers of anything, good neutral tone overal

Sources and references:

- mostly good

- fairly thorough and recent

- could always use more papers but you do have a good amount of good sources

- links work

- Note: I can't read the sources or delve deep into them but the rough google translation looks good, some didn't have dates of publication but not sure if thats due to the translator.

Organization:

- content can be hard to read when describing the course of the river in the lead and the geography section, the rest is fairly easy to understand.

- some minor grammatical errors but otherwise good

- generally broken down well, could use more sections about the ecology and morphology of the river

images and media:

- none present but annotated picture descriptions seem like they would work well.

Overall impressions:

Good work! Looking at the original page you have done a great job researching and adding details that were completely missing. The content is good but I think it would be really good and important to have sections about the ecology and the physical characteristics of the river. This might not be too much work as some of the sources you have already contain this information. Hopefully you wont need to do too much more research to find that information. Some shifts with the history section and pollution sections i think would be useful. Again good job, I look forward to learning more about this river when you are done!