User talk:Ajs2004/Lake Mendota

External Review

Hi Ajs2004 - My name is Jolie, and I'm the Project Coordinator for the WikiProject Limnology & Oceanography team. Your external review for your article on Lake Mendota is posted below. If you have any questions about your review, or would like to clarify anything, please feel free to let me know by posting a message on my talk page and I'll pass it along to your external reviewer. Thanks, and all the best as you wrap up your Wikipedia editing assignment!

EXTERNAL REVIEW - Hi Ajs2004, I'm a limnologist and biogeochemist who studies rivers and floodplain lakes. I'm particularly interested in how nutrients move through aquatic ecosystems, how nutrients are transformed while they're temporarily stored in small floodplain lakes, and how nutrient supply can affect aquatic food webs through the microbial loop. I've never had the opportunity to do research in any of the Wisconsin lakes - although, I've definitely heard a lot during my studies about Lake Mendota and the groundbreaking work that's been done there. So, I'm excited to have the chance to review your article!

You've done an excellent job expanding this page! The sections that you added on "Early history" and "Biodiversity" are very well written, contain lots of interesting and relevant information, and are very thoroughly referenced. Your text is written with an appropriate tone that's easy to read and accessible to the public. You've also added lots of cross-links to other Wikipedia pages so that readers can quickly and easily access more information. All in all, you've made some really substantial and useful contributions to this page! Here are a few minor comments and suggestions for you to consider as you wrap up the rest of your assignment:

• There are several sentences throughout your article that are quite long, and would be easier to read if they were split into a couple of shorter sentences. A close proof-read will catch these long sentences - although I've pointed out some examples in the list below.

Early history section:

• "...as the source of water for Pheasant Branch, a creek that drains on the east into Lake Mendota." Change this to read "...as the source of water for Pheasant Branch, a creek that drains from the east into Lake Mendota."
• The final sentence of the first paragraph is quite lengthy and would read better if it was split into two sentences.
• The last paragraph in this section is excellent - and a really interesting and accessible story!

Geography section:

• Good job expanding this section!
• "Navigation along this portion of the Yahara River is controlled by the Tenney Park Lock and Dam, which was constructed to allow shallow drafting boats to cross this dredged section of river through what was once wetlands and now helps to maintain water levels in Lake Mendota." This sentence is a bit awkward at the end - perhaps split and discuss how the locks help maintain water levels in a separate sentence.
• It was a good choice to move the text from the existing section on "Beaches" into this section - this is a natural place to put information on the lake's beaches.

Lake study section:

• Great job expanding this section as well! You've added a lot of important context here, including valuable information about the data that's collected by "David Buoy" and more details surrounding the discovery of the spiny water flea.
• In the sentence "The buoy was first planted in Lake Mendota in 2008..." it would be more accurate to say "The buoy was first anchored in Lake Mendota in 2008..."
• The sentence that starts "These dead zones have been shown to remain in the lake for up to two months in the summer..." is very long, and should be cut into a couple of shorter sentences.

Biodiversity section:

• This section is a really strong addition to the page, and does a good job of not just listing species but also explaining their ecological role and significance.
• I'm not sure whether it's a Wikipedia convention to list the scientific (Latin) name of each species after its name. If not, I would recommend removing the scientific names - they don't add any additional information to your article, can be found on the Wikipedia page for each species (which you've linked to), and are distracting for the reader. On the other hand - if the Wikipedia convention is to include scientific names, then definitely leave them in.

See also and References sections:

• Great additions to both sections! You've done a great job referencing the text that you've added, and these links and references connect a lot of additional information to the Lake Mendota page.

You've done an excellent job improving this article, and I look forward to reading the final version!

JoGDelta (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)