User:Ontarioeditor03/Hydroelectricity in Canada/AllisonStacho Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ontarioeditor03


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ontarioeditor03/Hydroelectricity_in_Canada?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section

The lead section is well-written, no errors, and easy to understand, however I do believe there is opportunity to include what is in your lead section later in the article body. The lead section talks about possible expansion, but doesn't necessarily mention the drawbacks that are mentioned in the other section of the body - perhaps a reference to that in the lead section would be good.

I also believe that the information in the lead section (i.e., how most of the hydroelectric sites were exploited in the early 20th century) should be included in the body in the future, and the information from the second source as well.

Otherwise, the lead section is concise, and the opening sentence reflects the article well.

Content

The content in the article is relevant to the topic, it seems to add a broad variety of components - talking about possible expansion vs the negative side of it. The content is all up-to-date, within the past few years, and all seems to belong within the topic. Again, no spelling mistakes, the structure was good, and content was good.

Tone and Balance

The content added was neutral and not heavily biased, there were no viewpoints straying towards a particular position. It seems to just discuss the facts about future plans and expansions. Perhaps a possible section in the future would be to talk about benefits for expansion?

Sources and References

All content was backed up by a cited source. The sources were thorough and did reflect the topic chosen, however a couple of the links did not work when trying to navigate them. The sources were from a variety of different websites, articles, etc.

Organization

The content was well-written, clear, and easy to follow with no spelling mistakes. It was well organized and appealing to look at, the way it was broken into sections I found easy to follow and also the importance of information in each section was good.

Images and Media

There were no images yet - perhaps some photos would be good to entice the reader.

For New Articles

The article is supported by more than 2-3 reliable sources, however there are a few links that do not work. If the sources are fixed then I think the list of sources for now are a good start. For a really well developed article, there would likely be a lot more references, but I think it is a really good start for now. The article might benefit from linking to other articles on wikipedia in the content section though.

Overall impressions

The article is really well developed at this stage, the references are pretty strong so far, the structure, tone and balance are good. I think the lead section could be improved and the sources, and perhaps if some images are added that might be good as well. However, the content is relevant to the topic, the sources are up to date, and I see a lot of potential moving forward with this topic!