User:Jaeden Akins/Spokane Valley–Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer/Kari's username Peer Review

General info
Jaeden Akins, Addylynyr, CoffeeAddictedBrokeAndAnxious
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jaeden Akins/Spokane Valley–Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Spokane Valley–Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer

Evaluate the drafted changes
I really enjoyed reading your draft! I only have a few notes: First - it might help to define some of these terms or link them to other articles:


 * Watercourse (define)
 * Groundwater flow (link to article of same name)
 * Agriculture under "contamination" section (link to Agriculture pollution)
 * Petroleum (link to article of same name)
 * Landfill (link to article of same name)
 * Hazardous materials (link to Dangerous goods)
 * Surface runoff (link to article of same name)
 * Dry wells (link to article of same name)
 * land application of septage and sludges (define/clarify)
 * Dairies (link to Dairy - a place where milk is stored)
 * Feedlots (link to article of same name)
 * Silvicultural (link to Silviculture)
 * EPA (link to United States Environmental Protection Agency)

Second - the "outline of proposed changes" section of your bibliography doesn't have any information in it yet; this is mostly helpful to idenify what's different about your draft from the existing article.

Third - toward the end of the "contamination" section, I would rephrase "It is critical to the community to protect it and maintain its water quality." While this may be true, it sounds like the article is taking a stand. If it said "The community considers protecting and maintaing its quality to be a critical task." or something like that, I think it would read better.

Fourth - have you thought about including the history of the aquifer's discovery and the ways it's been used? I think this would be good information for the article. I also feel like an infobox would be a great way to summarize information like the location, any inflows, outflows, and volume, really just any quantitative data.

Fifth - would there be any way to provide a link to the PDFs or articles used in your references? I believe this would make your sources easier for the community to review; I specifically had difficulty locating the Spokesman-Review article from 1980. My overall takeaway: I really appreciate the quality of your sources, and they contain a huge amount of information- this is amazing! You did a good job rephrasing things, I didn't feel like anything was too similar to the source. All of the information was relevant, and important - I particularly was really happy to see the SVRP Aquifier Atlas among your sources, and the inclusion of an entire section on the aquifer's interaction with the Spokane River. This is really valuable information that means so much to the community, and now anyone who wants to learn about our aquifer will have an easier time learning about this.

Ultimately, this article is fantastic. You've expanded so much on the little data that was there, and I think you've done some great work here.