User talk:Mdtree
| This user is a student editor in Concordia_University/HENV_680_Advanced_Seminar_in_Environmental_Science_WINTER2025_(Winter_2025). |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mdtree, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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) 18:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]General info
[edit][edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Meaghan - Mdtree
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Mdtree/Lake Ojibway
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Lake Ojibway
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit][edit]
Here is my peer review :) - hope
Lead
[edit][edit]
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes!
Content
[edit][edit]
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?:
- You repeat the sentence "While there is little geomorphological evidence, studies often presume that Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz existed during the same time period and merged during the late stages of the lakes" at the end of the Origins section and also at the end of paragraph 1 of Paleohydrological Evidence section
- In the paragraph about the Cochrane readvance, I wonder if a bit more contextualization could be helpful towards the end of the paragraph? Why is the debate happening - what do the different theories imply? Or maybe even structure it more explicitly around the debate and then how Lake Ojibway provides evidence for one of them. The structure could look like:
- Lake Ojibway provides evidence regarding debated time periods of the Cochrane readvance. The Cochrane readvance occured [...]. There are two main theories of the length of the event. [...]. The Lake Ojibway glacial varves show coarser than regular sediment, indicating significant water lowering levels in the lake during this time period (define that in the current paragraph).
Sources and References
[edit][edit]
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- In paragraph 3 of Paleohydrological Evidence, you say "Another says the Cochrane advance occurred approximately 310 years before the draining of Lake Ojibway" but without a source - is there one you can add here?
- In paragraph 4 of Paleohydrological Evidence, you say "The theory is the influx of cold, freshwater from the glacial lakes into the North Atlantic caused a slow down of oceanic thermohaline circulation which altered atmospheric circulation and caused a global cooling period. However, more evidence is needed to support this theory since it is doubted that the combination of ice sheet melt and proglacial lake drainage was enough influx of freshwater to have such a widespread impact on global climate." Are there sources you can point to for each of these statements? It sounds like it is disputed among academics, and it would be helpful to substantiate that.
Organization
[edit][edit]
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes! I would go through and see what terms you are able to link to other wiki pages because I think that would help readers contextualize further as well.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: Generally try to avoid passive language - you have a few long sentences that could be clipped if you activate your verbs.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?:
- Maybe for the Paleohydrological Evidence you could have two sub-headings for the last two paragraphs entitled "The Cochrane re-advance" and "Possible climate impacts of the lake's drainage." This would help just better understand how the information is fitting together and the larger importance Lake Ojibway has on paleohydrological debates.
- In the Origins section, here are some suggestions for the 3rd paragraph to help with clarity:
- The proglacial lake was named Ojibway in 1909 by Canadian geologist Arthur Philemon Coleman after an Indigenous people whose homeland coincides with his proposed location of the lake. According to Coleman’s initial assessment, Lake Agassiz drained and a series of small glacial lakes in southern Ontario subsequently formed. The Laurentide ice sheet continued to retreat northward eventually opening up the Ottawa river outlet which allowed the lakes to drain into the St-Lawrence Valley. However, as the glacier retreat moved northward, it eventually entered into the Hudson Bay catchment area in which water drains northward into the North Atlantic. The meltwater was still blocked by the ice, forcing the formation of proglacial Lake Ojibway. Coleman’s report, which was submitted to the Ontario Bureau of Mines, may have been accurate in describing the approximate location and extent of Lake Ojibway but the timeline in relation to other proglacial lakes does not reflect the current literature. While there is little geomorphological evidence, studies often presume that Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz existed during the same time period and merged during the late stages of the lakes.
- For the bolded sentence - is this still from Coleman's report? If so, make that clear, because otherwise it feels like additional information that distracts from your main point, which is that Coleman's report is weirdly both accurate and not. I would suggest putting the final sentence either first or second in the paragraph, and then use Coleman's report to further explain your point.
- I would also put the first sentence about its naming in the lead section also - that feels like good lead context.
- Here is a suggestion of how I would restructure the paragraph to help with flow and clarity. I'm not sure if this is accurate though, so feel free to ignore if these facts aren't attributed to Coleman!
- "While there is little geomorphological evidence, studies often presume that Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz existed during the same time period and merged during the late stages of the lakes. Arthur Philemon Coleman, Canadian geologist who gave the lake its name, provided an initial assessment of the lake in 1909 (is it the same date?). Coleman's report outlines his theory of the origin of Lake Ojibway. Initially, there was a draining of Lake Agassiz into a series of small glacial lakes in southern Ontario. Then, the northward retreating Laurentide ice sheet opened up the Ottawa river outlet allowing lakes to drain into the St-Lawrence Valley. The northward retreating glacier eventually would have entered the Hudson Bay catchment area, where water drains northward into the North Atlantic. As the meltwater was still blocked with ice, Coleman believes it forced the formation of proglacial Lake Ojibway. Coleman’s report, which was submitted to the Ontario Bureau of Mines, may have been accurate in describing the approximate location and extent of Lake Ojibway but the timeline in relation to other proglacial lakes does not reflect the current literature."
- then I would maybe add a few more lines of what the current literature says to counter Coleman's points.
- In the Current Uses section, I would maybe just break down the paragraph for the different points. It seems common for wiki articles to have single sentence 'paragraphs' - this just helps with easy reading rather than one big paragraph that has multiple different ideas. >> mostly just make the nature conservancy sentence its own paragraph - you can leave the rest!
Images and Media
[edit][edit]
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are the images well-captioned?: Great image! Really helped show just how large of a body of water it was, and what a difference its retreat would make.
Overall Impressions
[edit][edit]
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Definitely! Great job it was very rudimentary to begin with and you have made it much more comprehensive and interesting.