User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion/Jmvelasquez Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sarahbrown5

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion: :
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Resource depletion

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

The editor did not update the lead, however they left a note-to-self to do so. As they mentioned, the lead should represent what is being discussed in the article and also the information that will be/is added. Furthermore, I would try and find some citations to support the information already present.

The new content added is very much relevant to the topic. It is not included in the original article and I feel as that is a very inmportant contribution! There is plenty of detailed information but the author introduces it in a concise and clear manner. I really like how a definition was given for this that are not as familiar with the topic. Perhaps instead of listing a bunch of tuna and countries, you can just say "Overfishing predominantly affects various tuna species. Regions particularly susceptible to overfishing including the Arctic, the East African coast, coasts in Asia, and central/latin America, and the Carribean." Too much fluff and people can go to the articles for those places and find the information there. I agree with the idea of expanding on the negative consequences and impacts for marine ecosystems, economies, and food security. The common causes of overfishing was really interesting to read and is well detailed, however I'm questioning whether this much detail is required for an article about "Resource Depletion". I think it's a good idea to briefly touch on how overfishing is caused, but this information can be found in the main article about Overfishing. If you choose to keep this information, I would suggest finding an article to replace citation #8 (What is fisheries subsidy?). This isn't really a peer-reviewed article and doesn't mention where they get their information.

The content that has been added does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position; and does not attempty to persuade the reader in favour of one position or another. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The sources chosen (besides that one I mentioned) are very good. Despite there not being many peer-reviewed/scientific articles, the websites used are reliable. Perhaps some peer-reviewed/scientific articles would be a good idea too, just to get some different perspectives. I really like how you added article links for other articles, this is really nice and helps people explore other related topics!

I know this article is already very informative and maybe that is why no other sections were edited, but maybe in the future try double checking the citations and ensure they are up-to-date and links are working! Overall this bit is well-written with no grammatical errors. Well done! This sounds super cool!