User:Kawther.H/Hydropower/MccEmma Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kawther.H


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kawther.H/Hydropower


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

Lead
This student has updated the article with a section regarding the disadvantages of hydropower, so they included an excellent paragraph in the Lead that briefly mentions the benefits and disadvantages. The student's new introductory sentence does describe the article's topic well but I feel that it is slightly wordier/less clear than the preexisting introductory sentence. The lead does not contain information that is not relevant or preset in the article, and it does mostly concisely the article's major sections, but I am concerned with the paragraph about the history of hydropower. It seems overly detailed, since much of that content could simply be moved into the "History" section of the article, with a more brief overview of the history in the Lead.

Content
The "Disadvantages and Limitations of Hydropower" section that this student has added is very relevant to this topic, though I feel that it could be slightly more elucidated. Much of the history in the Lead is also relevant and neat. However, there is a significant amount of content added to the Hydroelectricity section, and I worry this runs the risk of making the article too similar to the Hydroelectricity Wikipedia article, which is its own entity. I don't know what the right balance to strike is, but this seems like too much info that would be better suited in the Hydroelectricity page.

The content on the page is up-to-date, and discusses the most recent developments in hydropower.

Tone and Balance
The content added is mostly neutral, however the new content in the Lead mentions the advantages and disadvantages of hydropower, but then the student has only added a section describing the disadvantages. This does underrepresent the aforementioned environmental benefits. I don't feel that the content is attempting to persuade the reader in favor or away from any particular position, though.

Sources and References
New content appears to be backed up by reliable sources like journal articles and textbooks. However, I can't find a way to read the textbooks that were cited multiple times, so I cannot verify that the cited sources do say this. I was able to check links to the journal articles that were cited, and the links do work and the content does reflect the source content. While I am not familiar with the available literature on the topic, it seems to me that the sources are thorough and current. Also, one of the textbooks used multiple times is cited separately, both number 8 and 10, so this should be corrected.

Organization
Overall, the content is well-written and informative, but it is not always clear. There are a number of grammatical errors that can at times make the content more difficult to comprehend - for example, "In this case, to control the flow of water a barrage is built and instead of collecting water in a reservoir." The majority of errors are not drastic, and could probably be fixed with a quick proof-read. The content that was added is generally well-organized into sections, however, as I mentioned before, I think a lot of the history paragraph in the Lead belongs in the "History" section instead.

Overall impressions
The article does feel more complete with the added content, which has improved its quality. It is more informative and provides a previously underrepresented perspective on the disadvantages of hydropower. However, this content could be improved by further explaining some of the disadvantages and including some advantages as well, to balance the coverage. There is also room for improving the grammar of the added content, as well as some further organization of content into the History section.

How can the content be improved?