User talk:Sandpiper798/Little Goose Dam

Peer Review
A. Neutral Voice


 * 1) Note at least 1-2 sentences where the author has a strong neutral voice.

The first two sentences, “There have been calls to remove the Little Goose Lock and Dam along with the other Lower Snake River (LSR) dams due to their impact on the salmon population and the fishing rights of local Native American tribes in the region.[1] However, those in favor of keeping the dam argue that removing it would cause more reliance on fossil fuel-based energy.”  did a great job of introducing the dispute while remain neutral and presenting each side of the argument which would later be expanded upon.


 * 1) Note any areas or sentences where the author could improve their neutral voice/tone.

“The dams have significantly reduced tribal wealth and well-being; tearing them down is a start in not only restoring the salmon population but also providing justice to Northwest tribes.[5”

Although this is a takeaway most readers would develop themselves based on the information provided, I think this sentence could be also read as more of a conclusion to a personal belief rather than a recounting of facts. Maybe reiterate that the “justice” that tribes may be able to win is hunting/fishing/land rights, or any of their other goals.

B. Close paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) Note any sentences/sections where you think the author might be struggling with accidental plagiarism/close paraphrasing. What strategies would you suggest for the author to help with this?

n/a

C. Readability


 * 1) Note any sentences that you think are particularly strong or effectively written.

“The dams have altered the landscape where tribes, in the past, carried out their ways of living. It’s estimated that nearly 34,000 acres of land and 150 miles of riverside would be restored if the dams were breached.[5] This would allow tribal hunting and fishing to be revitalized in areas that have been flooded and/or engineered for decades.”


 * This is an example of a clear relay of the main idea of the body while remaining neutral and providing some resources and visualization.


 * 1) Note any sentences you had to read more than once to understand what the writer was saying.

n/a the article was clearly and concisely written.


 * 1) Note any errors (e.g. spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) for the author to fix before publication.

n/a

D. Rubric

Lead section:n/a


 * The author is not planning on adding a lead section. It may not be necessary, but adding a single sentence to the existing lead section which alludes to the added section could be helpful because the current lead is so brief. But again, it is not super necessary

Article


 * Organization: professional
 * Is this draft being added under a new subsection title, or just under “description”?
 * I think it could be helpful to break up the body into two or three parts because it seems that the draft has a 1) indigenous struggle and rights 2) energy relevance format, so that could potentially be labeled for readability.
 * Content: virtuoso
 * Covers all topics, with no unanswered questions or points
 * Balance: Virtuoso
 * Remains neutral and provides an appropriate amount of coverage to all topics
 * Tone: virtuoso
 * Images: n/a

References


 * Citations: virtuoso
 * Every statement is backed up with references and link
 * Sources: virtuoso
 * Appropriate and up-to-date sources
 * Completeness: virtuoso

Existing article


 * New selections: virtuoso
 * The new addition covers relevant information previously not found in the article, especially indigenous rights perspectives which were only briefly mentioned before.
 * Reorganization: virtuoso
 * There was a need for a comprehensive body summary in the article, and the addition provides context and references to the topic.
 * Gaps: virtuoso
 * Gaps in the most relevant questions of the article; indigenous justice, energy use, and environmental impact are not only covered but tied together comprehensively.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) What would you describe as the project/author's greatest strength? In other words, what do you think they are doing very well?

The author did a great job of covering all the unanswered questions of the existing article, as well as neutrally tying together the interconnectedness of each topic.


 * 1) What is one thing you think the author could do to most improve their project before turning in the final draft?

Maybe consider breaking up the body into some smaller subsections.


 * 1) Note any additional thoughts, questions, or considerations not captured in any earlier comments that you would like the author to consider moving forward.

I enjoyed reading this article and learned something new! Graciebook (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)