User:Rwaggoner8/Stream bed/Yesseniaml Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Rwaggoner8


 * 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
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''


 * Everything written in the article seems relevant to the chosen topic, all the information was straight to the point and easy to understand.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''


 * The article was written in a neutral manner and does a great job of explaining the different impacts without bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * I think it would be helpful to link to other Wiki articles that go into detail about some aspects of the article, such as riparian vegetation, sediment, erosion, and deposition, so readers can have access to these definitions if they are not familiar with them.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''


 * The citations website link or doi are working.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''


 * Yes, all references are cited within the text and were acquired from reliable scientific databases.
 * I did not identify any bias.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''


 * The majority of the references used are relatively recent, therefore I believe the information provided is up to date.

Other comment/suggestion:


 * I'd recommend adding photos or diagrams that help explain or understand these impacts.