User:Tommyj0127/GIS and aquatic science/FreyaPortales97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tomyj0127


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tommyj0127/GIS and aquatic science


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * GIS and aquatic science

Evaluate the drafted changes
General review of draft:

Good: Your draft provides some good information regarding the use of GIS software to monitor flood risks as well as the impacts of erosion and runoff. The topics seem to be well established and are well separated by individual applicaiton of GIS software to a given area of concern (flood risk, erosion and runoff, etc). The links to utilized sources appear to work well, with the sources providing relevant peer reviewed information. You did not attempt to write a convincing conclusion, which is great for this assignment (unbiased and factual information only).

Suggestions: Double check the use of plural nouns (scientist vs. scientists), as well as the spacing between sentences (single space following a period). When you start a statement discussing the use of GIS and its applications, be sure to finish the thought within the same sentence, so as to avoid creating incomplete (or confusing) sentences. Comb through your draft for potential spelling and punctuation errors (command search "trough", this is the only spelling error I noticed when reading your draft). I would consider word choice for describing odors, rather than using a word that may push a personal take such as "nasty". Lastly, you may want to find a few more sources to support the neutral view of GIS applications (such as the use of the software to map lakes during droughts).

Final thoughts: The information provided appears to be appropriate and relevant to your article of choice. A clear bias is not obvious, and this further strengthens your current draft. All things considered, you are on your way to providing a solid contribution to your article. Great job!