User talk:Sharonnsylva/Chilcotin River/Kvmay Peer Review

Hi Chilcotin River group! The article you guys are writing seems great so far :) I love the amount of detail that’s been put into the article, it seems to cover all the important aspects of the information you want to cover, but isn’t bogged down by too many specifics. I also especially like the inclusion of the cultural significance section, as it gives the reader the sense that the river is important, but does so in a neutral, unbiased way. This article demonstrated quite well the environmental concerns surrounding the Chilcotin River, which I hadn’t previously heard about. There are a few areas of the article that could be a little hard to understand for a reader not in the scientific field (eg. “Wineglass assemblage” in the Natural Landscape & Setting section, or “anadromous” in the Fish subheading in the Ecology section). A quick explanation or a link to an explanation of the more scientific words would likely aid a greater scope of readers, and encourage those without a scientific background to continue reading. The tone of the article seems, overall, quite professional. However, the introductory sentence to the “Environmental Concerns” section could be perceived as trying to influence the reader to care more about the environment (which isn’t a bad thing, but Wikipedia might not consider that neutral). Perhaps removing the part about the environmental concerns worsening due to human activity might make it seem more neutral. The structure of the article seems great! A wide array of important subtopics are covered in a logical progression, and the paragraphs are just the right size to cover all the necessary information, but not big enough to intimidate the reader. The sources provided for the article all appear to be from reliable sources, such as governmental agencies, news outlets, and published journals. The amount of sources also seems ideal. All relevant perspectives seem to be included in the draft (there are some that aren’t present, but they are already included in the currently published article). I don’t think it’s crucial, but if there is time, perhaps a short section could be added on how the river is used by people (eg. recreation, freshwater for drinking, etc.). Otherwise, the article seems to cover all perspectives from what I can tell! One final suggestion I have is that adding some pictures or diagrams might encourage more viewers to read the article, as some might get intimidated if the article seems too text-heavy. Overall, well done! Your article is off to an amazing start, and I’m looking forward to reading the final product! :D Kvmay (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)