User:AvOsero/Freshet/MitchKrings Peer Review

My comments are at past the big grey box![edit]

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

AvOsero

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AvOsero/Freshet
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Freshet

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead:

I don't know if the lead was updated to reflect some of the new content you added. Throwing in a sentence or two describing where you plan on going in the page would be helpful, especially in regard to the "History" section. The lead itself though seemed solid and introduced the concept of a freshet well.

Content:

I think the content that was added is solid. I think you covered two very different areas which gives a nice breadth to the page. I think the biogeochemical impacts section is good. If I would change anything about it, I would maybe add in what those mean migration distances were just because as written I don't actually know how the relationship is affected by freshets (does it make migration times longer, shorter?). I think the History section is also really interesting (especially because I'm from Fargo so I got excited when I read Red River Valley!). However, I think you could use a different name, maybe referring to the section as like Events of Freshets or Past Freshets. When you leave it as "History" it makes it seem like you are going to be talking about the history of how it was discovered and stuff like that, which isn't what this section is about. Also, there's a couple of typos at the bottom of the page. You accidentally have "froxen" instead of "frozen" and the last sentence is missing a period and the "The" at the start doesn't need to be there.

Tone and Balance:

I think the tone was great. From what I read it all seems rather matter-of-fact. There also probably isn't too much of a tone to worry about with the specific subsections you chose. Maybe if you focused on other aspects to this topic, such as the best ways to mitigate it, then you'd have to worry about it, but as is I think it's good.

Sources and References:

I think the sources look solid. I tried clicking on a link here and there and some worked fine, but others didn't. One I got a 403 error, so I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done to fix that one (it was for the Red River flood source) and another one makes me log in with my UMN account to get to the paper (which not everybody will have obviously). Furthermore, for that source in particular there's no other info given besides "Shibboleth Authentication Request" except for the DOI, so you might want to fix that source in particular.Organization:

I think the organization of the article is great. No suggestions whatsoever.

Images and Media:

On the Sandbox page, I don't see any photos. Looking at the actual article though, there appear to be some images in the sections that you would have written so I'm guessing they are yours? If so, I think they are pretty solid. I think the panorama could be made a bit bigger to see it more easily on the page itself. I also think the Chesapeake Bay photo could show off what it looked like before and after the freshet in 1972 (if that photo exists).

Overall Impressions:

I like your changes to the article! I think it flushes it out a lot more which is always a good thing. I think a few things here and there can be tweaked to make it even better. Namely, double checking that your sources either bring somebody where they are supposed to go (and making sure they have the correct info present). I also think that renaming the History section would help the page too. Besides that, the biggest thing is to make sure the lead reflects your new content, especially because it seems like we are graded on that in the rubric! Overall, good job, keep it up in this last week!