User:EvorLi/Glacial stream/OMmachine Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:EvorLi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:EvorLi/Glacial stream


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

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.)

Positive Feedback

Overall, the article organization is very well done with good headers. All the content relates with the header, flows well, and is easy to read. The information in the Channel Formation section are all very good and should be kept in for future edits. Information about human activity and climate change in Stream Discharge and Location can be included in Human impact section.

Personal Note

I learned that water can have different names depending on where there are located; "supraglacial (on), englacial (in) or subglacial (under a glacier)." I was also surprised about about the ecology of glacial streams. That periphyton and invertebrates can also survive in such harsh environments.

Content, Clarify, and Accuracy

Overall, it is well done. It might be good to link some words to other articles, just in case the readers don't understand what certain words mean. Or have a small definition of the words, for example, for incision, sinuosity, and other words. I like how most bullet point are already paraphrased in your own words and not in quotations. I'm sure sentence structures will improve once bullets point are put into sentences. :)

Article Structure

"Glacial Stream Definition" can be removed since the article title is already Glacial Stream. Location section can be moved up above Channel Formation, so we can know where glacial streams are before describing them. The content are appropriate to their sections. Make sure to check with other similar-topic articles to see if the pattern/structure matches with them.

Article Tone & Neutrality

The tone of the article is professional and neutral. Content is based on facts and not opinions.

Sourcing & Citations

There seems to be sufficient amount of sources, most from academic journals, which is good. Some bullet points are not cited, for example, in the Stream Discharge section.

Balance of Content

If possible, I think more content could be added into Location and Human impact sections to balance the content. Most content are in Channel Formation and Ecology sections. These two sections might be a little bogged down in details. If possible, I think it would be good to combine and/or reduce some sentences in these two sections.

Whose Voice is Heard

Overall, different perspectives have been included. For location, I think it would be good to include some country/city names of where these streams are found. I noticed that the characteristics of englacial streams were not really mentioned in the article. If possible, I think it would be good to address this.

Keep up the good work!