User:Mdoughty332/Hydrological code/RaBailBail Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MDoughty332


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mdoughty332/sandbox


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

In your second sentence, the citation might be better placed at the end of the sentence.

Your first section is good, it provided clarity and relevant information.

In your fourth sentence in the Europe section, I would recommend saying, "in comparison to the rivers in the US." Other than that, good work on this section.

I didn't find any irrelevant data in your additions. All information provided was useful and often clarifying.

Writing has a neutral tone

Writing is broken down to sections that reflect major points, however I would recommend that you break up the United States section into relevant headings since it is a lot of text.

All links I tried worked, and sources are relevant, up to date, and credible

The lead is concise and not too long

Reading your additions, I would definitely say the article is more complete. Well done!