User:Monica.Keim/Eklutna River/Ziggy Marmot Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Monica.Keim)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Monica.Keim/sandbox (Eklutna River)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is an exact description of Eklutna river. There are a couple clarifications that would be nice. In the lead the river is referred to as a "degraded anadromous stream", I think this statement could use some unpacking and back-up. I know what this means, but I don't think just any layperson from anywhere else would know. This could also be a whole other section: two in fact. One section about what salmon species historically/still occupy the river, and another section on its status under the CWA, or whatever regulations would classify it as "degraded".

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant. This river does have a long history with dams and the city of anchorage. The article doesn't address the village of Eklutna (other than being the location of one of the power turbines). Is there any peer reviewed background on the Village and the river? or known traditional uses of this waterbody prior to the establishment of the City of Anchorage. Perhaps including a land acknowledgement in the Lead, say something like," located on Dena'ina Elnena land in the Southcentral region of the U.S. state of Alaska."

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very neutral. I like the dam history juxtaposed with the growth of anchorage and the base.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
If possible, some news sources from the past dam revisions would really add to the all the building of dams, and their subsequent decommission and replacement. Did I read correctly there were four or five built in total? Lower dam, its upstream retainer, an upper dam to replace the original (eventually destroyed by 64'), and then THE upper dam? Hot dawg, that's a dam saga.

Might also be nice to have some wording and cites on the ecology of the Eklutna RIver. We now know a lot about the dams, but more on the fish, the original peoples, the starting elevation. Are there historical and modern recreational uses for the river?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Its easy to read, and the sections are straightforward. I think you could still expand more on this river (as mentioned above) with added sections (ecology, fish species, traditional uses, recreational uses, etc)

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No included images. Could is you wanted, but I don't think its a must.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Really detailed history on the "dam saga", I learned a lot about that. Could use added sections about ecology, and any traditional uses (if any) known. Finally, I don't know how to write the phonetical spelling of Eklutna, but maybe there is someone at APU that speaks the Elnena Athabaskan dialect that could show you?

Anyway, nice article. Keep adding, its looking good.

~