User talk:NaoBao/sandbox

Article evaluation
I will be evaluating the "Environmental problems" Section. The section is a sort portion of the entire article and I feel as the information shown is too little. The author introduced one issue the rabbits cause to the environment and shows many different solutions but I feel there is a lack of other problems rabbits introduce that the environment. Overall, the article takes a neutral tone to explain the information and their sources.

Article selection
I am thinking of creating a new page on "The environmental effects of hydro-power in Laos". There is currently a page called "Energy in Laos" that describes hydro-power in Laos and "Dams and reservoirs in Laos" which explain the dams in Laos and a recent edit of collapsed dam -- which killed over 27 people. There is no page on the environmental effects of hydro-power in Laos, and I consider this an important topic because the Mekong river is spread across the entire country and hydroelectric power is a significant resource in Laos.

- I currently have a pdf called "Final Environmental Impact Assessment" of the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower project by NN3 Power Company.

- I also have an article called "Mekong Hydropower Development" which I found on researchgate.net

I will be looking for more sources as time progresses! NaoBao (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: This sounds great, but would you consider environmental effects being a section within either of the two existing pages that you looked at? Consider that you might get higher readership by attaching it to a more mainstream page. Your "section" could, for example, make up a considerable portion of Energy in Laos which mainly refers to hydropower anyhow. Julianfulton (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Biography
This is my biography page. My sources include:

- "Final Environmental Impact Assessment" of the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower project by NN3 Power Company.

- "Mekong Hydropower Development" which I found on researchgate.net

- https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HN/article/view/1816 NaoBao (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

- http://www.gdacs.org/Public/download.aspx?type=DC&id=28 NaoBao (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

- International rivers is a organization that helps protect rivers and those in need of them. https://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/nam-theun-2-dam NaoBao (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

- https://www.dw.com/en/laos-disaster-reveals-the-ugly-side-of-hydropower-in-southeast-asia/a-44822877

- https://www.dw.com/en/hundreds-missing-after-dam-collapses-in-laos/a-44800846 NaoBao (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

- https://www.pnas.org/content/109/15/5609.short

- https://www.osti.gov/biblio/142291

- https://iwaponline.com/jh/article/8/4/253/31279/Minimizing-environmental-impacts-of-hydropower NaoBao (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Marta Tkachuk
Hello Noah,

The peer review module begins with evaluating the lead section of your article. I am not certain if your first section is meant to function as your lead however I will analyze it as one. This first section gives a great overview into what your article is about. It includes a lot of vital information and even if it is not necessarily meant to be the lead, it is a great first section. Just by looking at this first section, I feel confident that I know what will be discussed throughout the article. Your section on hydropower remains on topic and works well as a section in general, and especially after reading your first section.

The structure of your article is very clear. You begin with a overview of Energy in Laos which offers the reader a great look into what the article is about. Including the natural history of the river basin works well to provide geographical and environmental context, and it makes sense to add that after your first section. Likewise, your last two sections work well together because you offer a detailed outline concerning hydropower, and then plan on analyzing the environmental effects of it. I think overall the structure looks great.

It is clear that the coverage isn't balances in your article but that is understandable since it is still a draft. You offer a lot of detailed and important information about energy in Laos and Hydropower but the other sections lack such detail. It would make sense for your section on the history of the river basin to be significantly less lengthy that your other sections, however I think you have a lot of information to add in the last section on environmental effects. Seeing as you have bulleted that section, each subsection would provide a great variety of effects and will greatly strengthen your article.

Your article reads very neutrally and I wouldn't be able to guess your point of view because all your sentences and very informative and not opinionated. I think the only section where you have to be careful about neutrality is your last one because different people have different perspectives about the environment and unlike the rest of your article which includes a lot of facts, I would make sure that you make sure your last section follows that pattern. It will make your article very credible and strong.

You have a nice variety of sources and it looks like you only use one source twice which I think is one of the main contributors to a strong article. All of your sources appear to be very reliable and apart from this one: Virta vie mua, Pöyry: Mekongin vesikonfliktin asekauppias? (which I cannot read), your sources are very strong. Your mainly developed sections are thoroughly sourced but it looks like your section on the history of the river basin is not, I would make sure not to forget to source it. Also, I would be interested to see what sources you decide to use for your last section.

Overall, your article is on the right track!

24.23.22.142 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Marta Tkachuk

Peer Review
This is a great start to your article. The structure works well, although I think your article could benefit if you added some history of Laos and its role in energy. I like that you have included hard data and how neutral the article reads. Overall, I think this article just need more information and a bit more background or introduction.Mvaba00 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Wolff Peer Review Response
Thanks Noah for your comments. I'm glad you mentioned the geography section; I was thinking it was a bit too broad as well. I am currently looking for more info on North Bloomfield. I'm hoping to find some info in newspaper archives considering the lack of info on the internet. Anyways, thanks again for your comments! They were really helpful. Rrwolff21 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Farah peer review response
Thank you so much Noah! I had all the footnotes on my google docs page and forgot to add them in my Wikipedia page. It's all done now! Fkalrubaiee (talk)