User:Klikata/Lake 223/EricDart Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Klikata


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Lake 223


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lake 223

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

You may want to combine the location and experimental lake studies together as having them separate is a but redundant. As well as this, in the location you could potentially give the latitude/longitude and altitude of the lake. Other than that you are good, aside from maybe linking the IES experimental lakes area to its Wikipedia, as well as some other links.Content:

You did well on the content overall, it comes across as well researched and relevant to the lake. You should still go through and finish citing and linking to other Wikipedia pages though. You may want to also expand the limnology section to talk about other experiments aside from the acid rain that happened in this lake. Overall great start, I don't see any real major reworkings that are necessary.

One small suggestion might be to make sub headings in the lake acidification to break up the large paragraphs, or just breaking the results and processes/description up

Tone/balanced

You have a nice neutral tone and it seems relatively well balanced, maybe some reworking of the acid rain experiments section just to make it read a little easier. It did not come across as biased either so well done.

Images:

Need Images

Sources

Your sources are good though not all of them appear to be sited in the text, as well as this you can also maybe go through and link a few possible key words to other Wikipedia articles rather than potentially having to explain them in the article.