Findings: The Goosefare Water Quality has Improved

Abstract
Our purpose was to see if the water quality in the Goosefare Brook was cleaner than it was in 2013. We traveled to multiple sites in the Goosefare watershed to test the water’s salinity, temperature, bacteria and pH. We used the LaMotte water monitoring kit to do tests on the water quality. We found out that the water quality has improved because the tests showed that the water quality was good. In 2013 there were 13 Contamination Advisories but recently in 2017 there were no Contamination Advisories. Even though we have shown that the water quality is better, someone may still disagree by saying that the water quality is still questionable. We could go back to any of the sites to see if anything changed.

Project Information
City or Town: 
Old Orchard Beach
School or Organization: 
Loranger Memorial School
Habitat: 
Freshwater - In a stream or river
Resources I used to create this project: 
Sims, Meagan. “Source tracking in the Goosefare brook watershed.” Presentation for LMS sixth graders, September 25, 2017. “Beach Status and Data.” Maine Healthy Beaches Program website. Maine Healthy Beaches. Liz Gotthelf. “Fecal matter levels in York County swimming spot ‘right off the scale.’ ” http://bangordailynews.com/2013/10/03/news/potland/fecal-matter-levels-in-york-county-swimming-spot-right-off-the-scale/.

Comments

This article has good introduction with multiple references and a clearly stated problem. The connection between the references and the definition of "health" could have been better explained. The Methods section was clear. The results had a clear data table but the explanation was not as clear as it could have been because of the word "dirty." Included data sheets and pictures were excellent. The conclusion was well stated but did not make clear the connection of the 2013 data to the conclusion made. This was a solid research article that could easily be edited for publication.

~The Findings editorial board

I think the article that was written should be published because the conclusions was very strong.

It was very easy to read and you gave good supporting details.

The data chart that was given gave very good information and, it was very
clear and easy to read.

For these reasons, I gave this article a 15 out of 20.

I think the article that was written should be published because the conclusions was very strong.

It was very easy to read and you gave good supporting details.

The data chart that was given gave very good information and, it was very
clear and easy to read.

For these reasons, I gave this article a 15 out of 20.

You asked your article question at the end of the article. No range medium or mean for the graphs. Too much information in the introduction. But overall you did a great job representing information and the graphs. You gave enough information that I could copy what you did. Great job! ( ⊙‿⊙)