User:Ontarioeditor03/Hydroelectricity in Canada/Jackaloping Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ontarioeditor03


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ontarioeditor03/Hydroelectricity in Canada


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hydroelectricity in Canada

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.)

Relevance and Clarity

Overall very well written article, the wording is clear and concise, with relevant citations well distributed throughout.

The sentence about CECs is a little disjointed from the lines before it, but could easily be worked in to better connect with the rest of the information in this section.

In the last paragraph there is a short sentence that could potentially be meant to connect to either the prior sentence or the one following it, or is going to be developed on its own?

Neutral position

In the lead, the word "exploited" could potentially be interpreted as a negative statement on these developments, so may want to reword.

The article is focused on hydroelectric power in Canada as a whole, however this draft is only focusing on Ontario, and specifically future developments. There appears to be nothing towards editing the rest of the article, or even including other provinces in the 'future plans' section. Given the current size of the other sections, this would mean the article would be mostly covering Ontario, with significantly less about other provinces. While not all provinces will necessarily have the same amounts of information, given that hydroelectric sites require specific land features to create and will not be evenly distributed across Canada, it might be good to develop on any other future projects or potential projects in other provinces as well within this section.

For the section about the Ontario River alliance - is the claim about CRC greenhouse emissions accurate? It's hard to tell if this is an opinion or not.

Bibliography

The sources are mainly from the IESO and Government of Canada, both reliable institutions, but you may wish to diversify your source selection a little more, just to ensure that it is not overly dependent on one organisation. Good inclusion of information direct from the company for the Little Jack River project as this will give more specific information about details of the project.