User talk:Elizreece/Clear Lake (California)

Peer review

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

General info Elizreece Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Elizreece/Clear Lake (California)

Lead Your lead section is amazing, its clear, concise, and gives tons of information about Clear Lake including why its important enough to have a dedicated wiki article, as well as thinks like geographical characteristics. It also stays relevant through the entirety of the article.

Content

Content Is on par with other wiki articles that Ive seen. Its very informative and fact driven. It seems pretty unbiased, although I dont really see where a topic like this can be skewed. With the facts about Clear Lakes History, Ecology, and Geology, its really seemed like I was reading an already well established article. The only thing I would personally change however, is to add "Geography" to the titles in this section - The first paragraph gives enough information to warrant this, I believe.

It seems very up to date. Ive noticed that some wiki articles are hesitant to put current or ongiong information in their spaces; maybe it has something to do with source reliability? I dont know. I like how you put the past, present, and future of Clear Lake into perspective.

Tone and Balance

The tone seems very balanced. You stuck to the more scientific side of things, keeping with facts and cite-able statistics - leaving the politics out for another article. I think thats very important, and a very smart way of keeping things equal and weighted.

Sources and References

Sources look like they all relate and have a good standing. Lots of peer reviewed articles, which is amazing. When I checked a few links, they all seemed to work! Organization This kind of goes back to the lead. Its written very well and can easily pass for an already well established wiki article. The sections and subsections are very clear as to what they contain, and stick to it, allowing for good flow and easy look-up. Images and Media Your article honestly doesnt really need anything, but Im personally a huge fan of pictures. Im sure whatever you end up putting in or leaving out will be just fine.

For New Articles Only

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

Article seems up to wiki standards, good length and reputable sources. Very strong and can stand up on its own. Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Overall, Im pretty jealous that you were able to crank something out that was so good. I had some issues with mine, but If I had to do some research on Clear Lake which brought me to your article, I wouldnt think in a thousand years that you did this for a project. It seems very structurally sound and flows like a good article should. Awesome job!