User:Sharonnsylva/Chilcotin River/Jkemp7 Peer Review

The article for the Chilcotin River I thought was very well organized and concise. I thought it was well linked to other pages as well and helped to fully understand both terminology and linking the river to other geographical areas. I think it would be helpful to expand on some of the other impacts the river might have on surrounding areas such as the economic sectors supported by the river, common species found in the river, etc.

The lead could be updated as well to reflect any additions but I think there can be some things added to really bulk up the article even though it is just an article on a river so there might not be a lot of in depth literature.

The Tone was appropriate and didn't come off as biased at all. It gives straight forward and direct writing.

I think my only real suggestion would be to include some more information in new sections if there is literature out there. dominant species, communities supported, sectors supported, possible risks that have been identified etc.

Other than that I think the organization, tone, hyperlinks, and sources are all done very well.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sharonn


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Chilcotin River


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

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.)