User talk:Sharonnsylva/Chilcotin River/Westcoastgal11 Peer Review

This article is off to a great start, you have added in lots of great sections expanding on the existing information and covering a variety of topics. The balance between sections on ecology and science as well as social interactions is very well done. I appreciate that the article includes recent events. I learned a lot about the significance, history, and ecology of the fish species in this river, which was interesting and informative. The section on Steelhead trout is especially strong, including the right amount of information and is written well, in a smooth paragraph form (not list-like). The tone of the article is very professional. In terms of writing, I would recommend changing the style to be more paragraph-like as it often feels more like the information is listed rather than incorporated together in a flowing paragraph. For example, the “Biogeoclimate Zone” section is list-like. Some paragraphs could be combined rather than having a single sentence as a paragraph. For section headings, each section is very clear with lots of sub-headings which in great. But some of the sub-headings have very little information in them so it makes reading the article feel a bit stilted. I would recommend either combining some of the sub-headings or adding more information to those sections (particularly the “Fish”, “Flooding” and “Sediment” sections). As well, I think the “Natural Landscape” section could have a different title. This title is a bit vague and does not tell me what information is in this section, which seems to be more focused on geology. Also, you may consider moving the “Ecology” section to after the “Environmental Impacts” so the COSEWIC sentence has more background. This section could be expanded for content too. A couple other smaller points: I think the article could benefit from having more links to other wiki articles, especially in the “Natural Landscape” section. I do not have much experience with geology/geography, so I found it a bit difficult to understand with a lot of technical terms. The first sentence in the “Environmental Impacts” section needs a citation. I know this topic does not have a lot of information, so I think you chose good sources considering. There are plenty of academic journals and government sources to balance the other ones. The topic is also equitable and diverse in the opinions included, particularly with the paragraphs including Indigenous and government perspectives.

````