This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
I liked the structure of the article. The most obvious change is to elaborate more on the current details. The opening should also provide a brief summary of what the passage entails.
The most important thing that you could do is to elaborate on why and how on each of the sections. It would be useful for the mitigation section to have a brief overview of what is currently being done to mitigate and why/how.
I think your structure of the passage is something that I could integrate into my own writing.
BBinspace (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback from Barkha
1) There's great organization! Your 4 main sections flow cohesively going from background to impacts to modeling to mitigation (logical order).
2) You've probably already planned this, but I think adding in case studies of current infrastructures and drainage systems in place as subheadings in section 1.4 would be awesome in terms of providing specific examples to strengthen the section.
3) With sources and case studies, especially in the mitigation section, I'd say this draft will be in good shape!
4) Your headings are clear and concise, which leads to ease of reading! It lends to your page being more organized and having a lay-out that shows a correlation between all the subjects discussed. In my own draft, a lot of my subheadings are lengthy, but I think I should to shorten them to make more of an impact with each section.[reply]
