User:Strubdr/Lake Annie - Florida/Dmpopson Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Strubdr


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


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

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Lead
 * The lead is well written. It is concise, gives an overview of the topic and the material covered further in the article. It doesn't necessarily introduce the sections. Specifically, the fish populations section is not covered. There is a descriptive opening line which clearly introduces the lake. The lead also includes information about the sedimentary record of the lake but this topic is not discussed any further at least in this draft.
 * Content
 * The content in the lead and lake ecology intro section seems to be up to date and relevant. For some of the climate change information it seems like this section covers the influence of climate change in lake systems in general, but doesn't actually talk about climate change specifically related to Lake Annie.
 * Tone and Balance
 * The tone of the article is good. The information is presented in an objective way that does not seem to have the goal of persuading the audience in any manner or show bias to any specific viewpoint.
 * Sources and references
 * While the citations used seem to be good reliable sources, more focus could be put on using journal articles. This might also allow for more content directly related to research being done at Lake Annie (examples of journals https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hilary-Swain/publication/233566677_Effects_of_climate_variability_on_transparency_and_thermal_structure_in_subtropical_monomictic_Lake_Annie_Florida/links/54a45e090cf267bdb90677e0/Effects-of-climate-variability-on-transparency-and-thermal-structure-in-subtropical-monomictic-Lake-Annie-Florida.pdf). Additionally, the references in the article are sparse. There is quite a bit of information that is lacking a citation to back it up. The link for the fish species reference does not work.
 * Organization
 * The article is broken up into understandable sections, and there aren't any glaring grammatical or structural errors.
 * Images and Media
 * A map was included to show the location of the lake. It still needs a caption but it does adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines.
 * New Article
 * There is an existing literature base for this lake which supports Wikipedia's notability requirement. The reference section could be expanded to include more of the available literature. The article does link to other articles to make it more discoverable.
 * Overall impressions
 * This is a strong start to the article. It includes good background on the lake and the research that is being done there.