User talk:ToxicAgarian/Run-of-river hydroelectricity

Peer Review
A. Neutral Voice


 * 1) “Similar to a regular dam, water is stored from lull periods to be used during peak-times. This allows for the pondage dams to provide for the regulation of daily and/or weekly flows depending on location.”
 * 2) “These are listed in order of least impact to most impact, as well as (on average) requisite project size..” - This is me picking at straws because your neutral tone is strong. I don’t know if there is a better way to word this that isn’t sounding like you are determining their general impact and is more objective language.

B. Close Paraphrasing & Plagiarism


 * 1) I do not feel like you are plagiarizing in any sentences.

C. Readability


 * 1) “Dam-toe has no flow regulation and utilizes the natural flow of the river to turn the turbines. Electricity generation is heavily dependant on river flow.”
 * 2) “Diversion Weir has very little flow regulation, which is generally used to cover exclusively short-term peak times electricity demand.”
 * 3) This reduces the impact on the river's ecosystem, allowing for, - This just is unfinished

D. Rubric


 * 1) Lead section
 * 2) Introductory section: Looks good!
 * 3) Summary: You could add more to the lead section to summarize your additions.
 * 4) Context: The lead is pretty short and could probably use some more context, maybe include where they are popular or why.
 * 5) Article
 * 6) Organization: Looks good:
 * 7) Content: I think your additions are really strong. It could be helpful to expand on the types since the descriptions are short and technical lingo.
 * 8) Balance: Maybe expand on the advantages section so it is similar content amount to disadvantages.
 * 9) Tone: Your tone is good and remains neutral. You could make sentences more concise in some areas.
 * 10) Images: I don’t see any images currently but I assume maybe they are just not copied over. Images and diagrams are definitely necessary for this topic to understand the structure.
 * 11) References
 * 12) Citations: There are no citations in the concept section which you did not edit but could look into. You include citations but there are some sentences that lack a citation.
 * 13) Sources: There are only three citations so an increased reference page would strengthen the article. Diversifying references will help with credibility.
 * 14) Completeness: One reference (3) has an issue with date values.
 * 15) Existing articles
 * 16) New sections: The major types section is a great addition definitely helps understand the idea.
 * 17) Re-organization: There were no changes to organization from what I can see.
 * 18) Gaps: I appreciate the additions and addressing gaps including the types which will help the general audience understand a complicated topic.
 * 19) Smaller additions: All of your smaller additions add useful information.

E. Final Questions/Considerations


 * 1) The greatest strength is adding really strong factual information, such as adding the types. This is a complicated topic and your additions will help understanding.
 * 2) I think you could add more to your sections and work on including more references.
 * 3) Some sentences were unfinished so just make sure to carry out your thoughts.

Editor Meg (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)