User talk:Polidoroal
| This user is a student editor in McMaster_University/Global_Change,_Ecosystems_and_the_Earth_System_ENVIRSC_3BO3_(Winter) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Polidoroal, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi there! I think the suggested draft you have for what to add to groundwater recharge is really good! Especially the part where you touch on the future of climate change and its implications. The article seems to be neutral in tone, and the lead section is a good length. Your sources look reliable which is good. Maybe more info could be added to the “Estimation methods” section (i.e. maybe talk about Darcy’s Law, Hydraulic Potential, Bernoulli equation). Great work so far! Nramberg (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Camille Giuliano
[edit]The article is very well written with no noticeable biases and nothing seems under or over represented. The use of subheadings was very well done and helps with the overall flow and organization of the article. All the citations work and are all from reliable sources and all the facts are properly cited. However, only one seems to be from a primary source. Maybe try finding one or two more to complement the one you have. Another thing you might consider is adding the links to other wikipedia articles mentioned within your article (words like drainage basin and climate change for example). These are very small issues and overall, your article is great! Nice Work! Camillegiuliano (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review by Nicole Yu
[edit]This is a great constructed draft that contained specific details about the groundwater recharge, which is also written in a neutral tone. It is excellent that you combined climatology to hydrology. The cited picture you provided is also helpful for understanding and the sources you used are reliable. Therefore, It is easy for me to understand what will affect the groundwater recharge and enrich my knowledge as well. Overall, you did a great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggball2333 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review by Tiffany Desjardins
[edit]All of the information in the article is relevant to the topic and is presented in an unbiased manner. I think that the user's decision to add a section on the article on the factors affecting groundwater recharge made a great addition to the article. With the relevance of climate change in today's society, this is a great way to incorporate the topic to that of the chosen article. I don't find that any of the information is over- or underrepresented. The references are all from reliable sources and the facts are well cited. The only criticism that I have is that the second half of the "urbanization" subsection is missing citations for the factual information presented. Besides this, I think the user has done a great job at presenting interesting, relevant, and unbiased information. Amazing work! Tiffanyd4L (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]This article does a great job of relating groundwater recharge to climate change and urbanization. In my opinion, I found your work to be very insightful and educational. Great job linking groundwater availability with the global warming and increase in temperature. Furthermore, the insertion of the graph is a great way to visually demonstrate the natural groundwater process and was a great addition to the article considering there was only one image beforehand. Similarly, discussing the impacts of urban areas on groundwater recharge was compelling and very relatable to the subject. An improvement I would suggest for your article is to add more citations to back your contributions and provide further information. Overall, your article contribution is very well done. The relevancy of your work to current worldwide issues makes the article more appealing to readers. Excellent work. Mieleveronica (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Katrina Fries
[edit]The contributions added to the article enhanced my understanding of groundwater recharge and its affects on the environment. Section headings and contents of the article are well worded and are stated in a neutral tone. I would consider adding something about Darcy's Law to supplement discussion on recharge rates. Overall it was a good read. 8fries (talk)8fries —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Nicole Micallef's Peer Review
[edit]Your part on urbanization is very well written. You have very good sources and you make references to many different articles which is really good. Your sentence structure is good and you also provide a lot of detail on the consequences of sudden influxes in groundwater recharge. You make a lot of good points and you also keep the information short and to the point which is very good for the readers. It allows readers to get all the information they need without having to read extra facts or useless details. Overall, very good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micallen0713 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)