User:Williamkearney98/River ecosystem/Caleb Bak Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Williamkearney98, Kkeenan3, Collin Hendricks


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Williamkearney98/River ecosystem

Lead
Lead was not apart of the sandbox draft since it is already completed on the main article.  Guiding questions: 


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

n/a


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

No


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

No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions: I see these questions as irrelevant in scientific based articles that only deal with facts.


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Yes


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

Yes


 * Are the sources current?

n/a in science


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

Yes, and I do not think that second question is very relevant


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, though I would suggest fixing the date value errors.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

For the most part (See Overall Impressions)


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, but there were a couple things that caught my eye (See Overall Impressions)


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

Yes

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


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

No, but with how complicated it can be to add images that comply with copyright and plagiarism rules, I can understand (there were several images I wanted to use, but I couldn't get the appropriate licenses to use them with Wiki). Plus, there are images already in the main article.

It would be helpful to have images on the topics of food chains and food webs since I'd have to imagine there are plenty of images of that have been used as learning aids. Hopefully, there is a copyright free version.


 * 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
''' If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. '''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Yes


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

You guys are working with a seemingly fleshed out Wiki page, and I am very impressed that you were able to find so much to add to it. Very good work.

The organization of the headers and sub headers are clear, and very easy to follow. It took my group awhile to figure out a good layout, and to be honest, I am expecting a lot of critiques about it.


 * How can the content added be improved?

(Under Trophic Level Dynamics Heading) "Portions of this solar radiation is consumed by producers (plants) and turned into organic substances to be used by inorganic substances (consumers) " This sentence has two issues for me. 1. Sure, I guess solar radiation is "consumed" by producers, but "consumed" when referring to photosynthesis doesn't read right to me. Assimilated or incorporated (words like that) would fit a lot better. 2. Referring to consumers as "inorganic substances" may be a simple error unless I am misunderstanding something.

(Under Top-Down and Bottom-Up Affect) " Temperature plays a role in food web interactions including top-down and bottom-up forces within ecological communities." How? Temperature is only vaguely mentioned in the sentences following, but how it influences Top-down regulation isn't clear.

(Under Top-Down and Bottom-Up Affect) " Numerous biotic and abiotic factors have the ability to alter the importance of top-down and bottom-up interactions." What are those biotic and abiotic factors?

Trophic Cascades Good content, but A brief definitions of the concept/example at the very beginning would go a long way. Introducing the term as a "food web interaction" and moving on is a bit of an issue to readers who may not know the term. There is a good example 5 sentences in that I thing would work very well.

(Under Primary Consumers) "Primary consumers are the invertebrates and macro-invertebrates and are the organisms that consume the plant and algal primary producers." This read as a little too wordy, so let me offer a suggested revision. "Primary consumers are invertebrates that feed upon the primary producers." A good refences is the first sentence under the Secondary Consumer sub header.

(Under Secondary Consumers) "Energy and nutrients that is started with primary producers continues to..." "This is started" did read right. Produced by, that starts with, or some other substitution would help that sentence flow better.

(Food Web Complexity) I understand not wanting to have one big block paragraph, but having the header "Food Web Complexity" with a sub-header "Complexity" gives off the appearance that you are saying the same thing twice, and is some cases, you are (I'll go into more detail below). I would recommend marrying those two paragraphs, or changing the name of that sub-header (ex. Species Connectivity). What content is being repeated isn't bad content. Having the broad concept explained in the "lead" under the header makes sense when it is elaborated on in multiple sub-headers, but with only one sub-header, I just don't see why It cannot just be one harmonious paragraph (sorry if that was a bit hard to follow). The example of this is when you explain the effects of a species being removed. Under the lead, it is broadly explained as: "When a species is removed from a river ecosystem the intensity of the effect is related to the connectedness of the species to the food web." Then, under the sub-header, it is again explain with example as: "An invasive species could be removed with little to no effect, but if important and native primary producers, prey fish or predatorial fish are removed you could have a negative trophic cascade." I may be reading a little too much into it, but I think the main takeaway is the sub-header called "Complexity" is the part that bothers me the most.