User talk:BrilliantMonkey/Small hydro

Peer Review Requests
-The more pressing issue is probably the neutral voice of the article and close paraphrasing, please let me know where I can improve on that.

-For the history section I am wondering if I should add more content. - Under history I would add more context of what kind of policies were pushed to add small hydro into place. -Are the number of citations effective or should I add more? Not necessarily sources but if I should include more in-text citation.

Florencia's Peer Review: A. Neutral Voice

You do a great job at keeping a neutral voice in the History section but where your neutral voice is lost is in the advantages and disadvantages. In the second paragraph, you sound like you are giving suggestions for building small hydro in some of the countries mentioned. I feel like you can maybe add more disadvantages of small hydro if possible because the advantages section is overpowering.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism

Your paragraph under project design, does sound a bit close to paraphrasing because you are using words that people will not understand if they have not read the article where you got the information from. One way to solve this might be to cite the source so people can check out the information that this paragraph is talking about. You can also add more context in the paragraph.

C. Readability

You did a good job in the history section of the article. It was easy to read and had a nice flow. There was nowhere where I felt like there were grammar mistakes. One part I had a hard time understanding was the growth section paragraph. I was confused about how the growth of small hydro. I am wondering what is motivating the growth of small hydrogen in these countries in particular.

D. Rubric

Each introductory sentence in each section edited was concise when it comes to relating to the article. I do believe you do a good job of summarizing the sources when adding the information to the article. You do a good job of giving the right amount of context to your contributions. I do believe that the growth section should be given more context because I am a bit confused about what your contribution adds to that section. It sounds like the rest of the section and sounds a bit repetitive. As for organization I felt like under the Advantages and Disadvantages section there should have been a subheading to make the points clear between the two. As for content, you did a nice job with adding links to relevant articles for background but not for the project design section.

E. Final Questions/Considerations

The author's greatest strength was adding a great amount of citations in their work along with being able to give context in most of their work. They had a nice flow in their contributions. They did a great job at explaining what small hydro history and advantages. I do believe that the author could improve at adding more disadvantages of small hydro to have a neutral voice in this section. I also believe that the project design could add a section on what resources are used to make small hydrogen. Just explain a bit more of the cons that are produced from small hydrogen.

BrilliantMonkey (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)