User:AleahHahn/Kuroshio Current/Beepbeep97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AleahHahn


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AleahHahn/Kuroshio_Current?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall impressions


 * Generally synthesized the information well and presented it in a way that is fairly easy to understand, especially if you follow links to other pages.
 * I like the maps and the aerial image in the Eddies section!
 * Structure is pretty solid, some recommendations below.
 * Tone is mostly consistent, but watch out for phrases that sound like an essay instead of an informative, neutral piece.

Lead


 * Overall I think the lead introduces the the Kuroshio Current well. I looked at the California Current wiki page and it's a similar introduction.
 * I'm not sure the picture of the gyres should be in the lead section. I like the map of the currents that is in the "Physical Properties" section, so you could move that up or find a different map of the current in the context of the gyre. I like the idea of having a map there though.

Content


 * In the Physical Properties section, I'm not sure what "The path of Kuroshio south of Japan is reported every day." means. Maybe explain this more? It doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the paragraph.
 * The Biodiversity section needs more information. You could give examples of threatened species. And metrics of biodiversity? Or more info about how anthropogenic changes are affecting biodiversity. It could also go with the marine life section.
 * In the Eddies section, it might be good to define eddy and warm-core rings sooner, or link to the relevant wiki pages early in the section.
 * Everything in the article appears to be relevant to the main topic, great job keeping the info centered on the Kuroshio Current.

Tone/Balance


 * Overall the tone of the article is consistent! There are a few places where it becomes obvious that it's a different writer--mostly in sentence structure and word choice. Specifically, the Biodiversity section reads very differently from the Nutrient Transport section.

Sources/References


 * There are no references for the Deep Sea Erosion section.
 * Good use of recent sources, but some are 30+ years old so the information might be outdated.

Organization


 * The biodiversity section could be removed and/or repurposed under Marine Life.
 * The Kuroshio Current Intrusion section seems a bit out of place. Why is the Biological Transport section not under Biological Properties? Perhaps you could have a section that encompasses nutrient, biological, and sediment transport.
 * Look out for run-on sentences, like this one under Deep Sea Erosion: This erosion has revealed the Kuroshio Knoll, a 3km x 7km bean-shaped elevated flat area 60-70 m below surface levels in comparison to the rest of the Plateau which located at around 400-700m.
 * There is some redundancy in the paragraphs--try to be more concise and combine ideas if necessary. There are a couple sentences at the end of the Nutrient Transport that basically repeat the same idea.
 * Be consistent with the name, sometimes it's Kuroshio Current and sometimes Kuroshio current.