User:Rwaggoner8/Stream bed/Taguzman1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rwaggoner


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rwaggoner8/Stream bed


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Stream bed

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.)

Lead, Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

·       Yes, they have.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

·       Yes, it is a very good introduction. The one item they might want to consider is to layman’s term definition of what a ‘check dam’ is.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

·       Yes, the article seems very well written.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

·       Yes, it introduces a new topic.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

·       While there is a lot of information that was presented, it was done in a way that was very informative and not overwhelming.

'''Content. Guiding questions:'''

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

·       Yes, absolutely, the new section on stream bed morphology greatly improves the original article.

Is the content added up-to-date?

·       Yes, five of the references are within the past 5 years, another 5 were written within the past 20 years

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

·       Not that I am aware of

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

·       Doesn’t relate to this article

Tone and Balance, Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

·       Yes, there was no bias written into the article

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

·       No, see previous response

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

·       No, the article is direct, to the point and well balanced

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

·       No, it is strictly informational

Sources and References, Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

·       Yes, there are two scientific articles that were used a resources to create the artivcle

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Are the sources current?

·       Yes, five of the references are within the past 5 years, another 5 were written within the past 20 years

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

·       I don’t know how we would be able to determine the diversity of the authors or if they include any marginalized individuals.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Check a few links. Do they work?

·       Yes, each link that I review worked correctly.

Organization, Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

·       The article is very well-written and easy to read. Although, in the 2nd paragraph, the 3rd sentence was a little confusing.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

·       No spelling errors that I noticed. I would suggest starting the 3rd paragraph with ‘The removal…”. (But that is just a suggestion)

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

·       Yes, the new content flowed very well, which made it easy to read.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

·       Nope

Are images well-captioned?

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

Does Not Apply to this article

Overall impressions, Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

·       Yes, it was a very good addition to the original article

What are the strengths of the content added?

·       I think that the topics included and the concise manner that they are presented to the reader are its main strengths.

How can the content added be improved?

·       I really liked the article and commend the author for doing a great job in providing a brief, accurate description to the original article. However, if there was one thing, I would do to improve the article I was remove the sentence listed below from the 3rd paragraph. It really doesn’t add anything to the article, but interrupts the flow and makes it a bit convoluted.

“changing the shape from a U to a V. Changes in channel gradient are counterbalanced through changes in channel depth and width to maintain a fair stability between the frequency of the bed load transport and the intensity.”