User:Jackaloping/Aquatic biomonitoring/Kristen112211 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Jackaloping
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Aquatic biomonitoring

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer-reviewed Aquatic biomonitoring

Clarity

The article is well-written and easy to follow. The lead section captures the readers attention and provides relevant information without being overall detailed. There are no significant grammatical errors or overly advanced jargon. The author offers a variety of different images to enhance readers' overall understanding. The photos that are included are well-captured and clearly captioned. The content provides a clear picture of the field of aquatic biomonitoring relative to the scope of the article. My suggestion to improve clarity is to outline clearly what will be discussed in the article with the lead section.

Structure:

The article follows a logical flow of information and provides a clear structure for readers. I appreciate how the author started with this monitoring technique's purpose then followed with methods and variables to consider. I appreciate how the author briefly introduced sections on methods and purpose. In order to achieve that level of structure throughout the article, I would include introductions to sections of variable and indicator species.

Neutrality

The author does an excellent job of keeping a neutral tone and does not lead readers to a particular perspective. The author does a great job of providing information from various resources from peer-reviewed journals. To improve overall all neutrality, I would encourage the author also to include more references from governmental organizations or community-driven news outlets to capture a variety of different perspectives and knowledge on the topic.

Balanced coverage

The article provides an insightful overview of the topic. The author does not try to convince or persuade the audience into a particle way of thinking. The author does a great job highlighting the relevant aspects of the subject without favouring a particle section. In order to encapture a multitude of different perspectives on this topic, I would include a section on the drawbacks and limits to this type of monitoring technique or how it compares to other forms of monitoring. This would provide readers with a more well-informed picture of the topic.

References

The authors provide updated and relevant peer-reviewed sources. The author utilized a multitude of sources for each topic. Every topic discussed has a clearly cited reference. The references are easily accessed. The references included in the article are properly represented. The only thing I would do to improve the reference section is to have more sources from non peer-reviewed journals in order to provide a more diverse perspective.