User talk:Fgraba/sandbox

Peer Review
Lead Section: Really good and concise, makes the topic easy to understand. After reading the rest of the article I can confirm that the lead is a very good indicator of the main topic and it provides a well enough description on its own. I believe there is nothing missing and it equally emphasizes everything that the article covers later on. Structure: The structure is simple and clean which makes narrowing your selected topic effortlessly. From the first sentence, you easily know what it is about and can follow along to learn in more detail. All of the sections are presented in a way that makes the correlation easy to follow. Balance of coverage: Nothing seems off-topic and the outside information doesn't take too much from the article. Each section's length is equally distributed, the topography area is a bit shorter than the quantitative area yet there is barely any difference. I would say that the water sources area could be improved, it provides concise information. For next time I suggest maybe adding a few more lines to the water sources area. Neutral content: The content presented is from a completely neutral point of view. It talks strictly about the precipitation measured in these zones and specifically how they are measured. The content is purely scientific. It has no bias towards positive or negative information. Reliable sources: Are listed and very well used. They provide additional information about quantification and topography without overflowing the page with references. I specifically enjoyed how the topography section used the references to further emphasize the importance of the region and how it influences the catchment of water.Pcolon7 (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)