User:Frenchtoast350/Coquitlam River/Sharonnsylva Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Coquitlam River: Ian Russel, Luc Couture, Savannah Shirley

Usernames: Frenchtoast350, Nextians, SavannahShir


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:SavannahShir/Coq River Sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Coquitlam River

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Coquitlam River team, here is my peer review. I learned a lot about the Coquitlam River. The conservation efforts were very interesting to learn about. I felt like your draft article gave me some ideas for my own article, I only hope I can find as much information. I thought you did a great job on your draft, your team was lucky to have information available to add/include. I hope my peer review helps!

Lead

 * 1) Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 2) * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by your group but I know that we have not got to that point of the assignment yet! There is some information duplicated between the draft article lead/setting sections and the current article but I see that the draft article is trying to rewrite the current article in a more meaningful way. I appreciate that and I think it is a good idea.
 * 3) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 4) * The lead does have an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. It is interesting that the meaning of the name is different than what is currently listed in the article, so great job in correcting that misinformation!
 * 5) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * 6) * The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * 7) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * 8) * The lead does not provide information not present in the draft article.
 * 9) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * 10) * I think the lead has the right amount of information. I do not feel overwhelmed when I read it. The way you have written your lead has given me some insight into my own, thank you for that!

Content

 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * 2) * The content currently written in the draft article is relevant to the topic.
 * 3) * In the species subsection, could you add a column to list which species are vulnerable, endangered, or at risk if it is applicable?
 * 4) Is the content added up-to-date?
 * 5) * Since you recently conducted a search for information, your content appears to be up-to-date.
 * 6) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 7) * Since COVID-19, natural assets have become such a critical part of human lives. If possible, it would be interesting to see recreation activities or how the Coquitlam River ties into the health and wellness of the community it is in.
 * 8) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * 9) * If the information exists, providing more information on the river's importance to the Kwikwetlem First Nations could address/provide more representation to an underrepresented group.

Tone and Balance

 * 1) Is the content added neutral?
 * 2) * The content added is neutral.
 * 3) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 4) * There does not appear to be any claims that are heavily biased.
 * 5) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 6) * As I mentioned before, providing more information on the cultural importance of Coquitlam River to the Kwikwetlem First Nations would be beneficial.
 * 7) * As I mentioned before, trying to tie health and wellness could add another layer to this article.
 * 8) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * 9) * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favour of any position.

Sources and References

 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2) * There is one sentence that is a missing reference:
 * 3) ** "Throughout the 1950s and 60s it was common practice to extract gravel directly from the stream bed, however this ceased in 1965 with the B.C. Gravel Removal Order."
 * 4) * Can the following phrase "Coquitlam River Watershed Society (CRWS)" have a link to its website added?
 * 5) Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * 6) * The content appears to accurately reflect the content in the sources.
 * 7) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * 8) * I am having trouble finding any information on my topic, so the fact that you were able to find this much information is enough for me. I know it is not easy to find information.
 * 9) Are the sources current?
 * 10) * Most sources are current which is great!
 * 11) * Some sources are older but I understand if information was limited it might have been difficult to find current sources.
 * 12) Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 13) * The following source links do not work:
 * 14) ** Source # 11
 * 15) ** Source #13
 * 16) * The following sources do not have links:
 * 17) ** Source #3
 * 18) ** Source #6
 * 19) ** Source #9
 * 20) ** Source #14

Organization

 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 2) * The content is clear and easy to read.
 * 3) * I suggest reviewing your draft and removing any filler words in your writing. Also reviewing tenses of some of the sentences. I know this is a first draft so you will likely do this anyways.
 * 4) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * 5) * There are some errors with grammar, punctuation, and spelling such as:
 * 6) ** "The flow reduction caused by the dam and the water diversion to Butzen Lake" - assuming that should be Buntzen.
 * 7) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * 8) * Is it possible to break up the large paragraph in the setting section? It would make it easier to read and follow.
 * 9) * Is it possible to organize Conservation & Threats into sub-sections with headings?

Overall impressions

 * 1) Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * 2) * The content in this draft article has added a great deal of quality to the current article which was short and unappealing. This content makes the current article more complete.
 * 3) What are the strengths of the content added?
 * 4) * The content is organized well and has provided me with some insight on how I can improve my own article. My group and I are having a hard time finding information but I am hopeful in improving my article after reading yours. I think you have discussed incredibly important information!
 * 5) How can the content added be improved?
 * 6) * The minor things I have mentioned above will only add to this article but I think you have done a great job so far!