User:AlgalBloom34/Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Madison.platow Peer Review

Peer review
1. Peer reviewers: Madison Platow and Shannon Cully

2. Article reviewed: Environmental Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

3. Strengths: a. What does the article do well?

The article provides clear and articulate information that contributes to the overall understanding and impact of the subject matter. It clearly organizes the information and actually improved the organization from the original article. They did a great job at this to the point where their additions improve the article.

b. Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

They were able to find a lot of information that was relevant to the subject which is impressive given that there is so much literature on the subject. I was impressed by the information added about how PAHs enter marine species and which species are most affected.

c. Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

Sentences such as “In the field, a comprehensive 2017 study of five different species of seagrass abundant near the coasts of Chandeleur Islands estimated a total loss of 104.22 acres of seagrass due to oiling.” showed clear understanding of the Wikipedia trainings because you were sure to show a concrete example of an ecological impact of the oil contamination without including biased wording or personal conclusions and citing the source. It is also (I believe and hope) put into your own words which is important.

d. Does the article include:

• A lead section that is easy to understand?

Yes, it is concise and understandable. Most of the words are copied over from the original article.

• A clear structure?

Yes, they improved upon the structure of the article and made it easily readable and followable. I like how the information on the chemicals released by the oil spill were placed at the beginning of the body of the article because it gives appropriate background information.

• Balanced coverage?

Yes, from the information on toxicity to the pathways of contamination and the impacts on marine life, there is information about all aspects of the spill.

• Neutral content?

Yes, they provided all factual information without persuading the reader to lean a particular way from credible sources.

• Reliable sources?

Yes, they have a variety of sources all with reputable backgrounds.

4. Opportunities for improvement:

a. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article?

Personally, I feel like the article itself is very lengthy but with all relevant information so as long as they continue to provide concise information, they will be great. For example, the section on the impacts on aquatic mammals and specifically the several paragraphs on dolphins can be condensed into one or two paragraphs that state how dolphins were found with several diseases and found dead but taking out some of the numbers and quotes. I think the Wiki trainings said to avoid too many quotes unless absolutely necessary and rather summarizing the data which I feel like you can improve on a bit.

b. Why would those changes be an improvement?

If they shortened the article a little bit, I feel like readers wouldn’t be worn out by the length and not be intimidated by the dense amount of information. Wikipedia is meant to provide background information on an issue and then readers can choose to pursue further research into scientific journals if they would like to learn more information. Even though you cite the quotes included throughout the article, it is probably safer to avoid using quotes and instead summarize the data in your own words. This will also make the article easier to understand for people with various backgrounds of education.

5. Priorities: What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article?

Condense it and summarize quotes and data in your own words.

6. Self-reflection: Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable  to your own article? Let them know!

Your structure was inspiring and insightful that I will use on my own article; the introduction to the chemicals and their pathways of exposure at the beginning and the specific effects on animals at the end was a great way to organize the article.

You also had a good neutral tone which was hard to do especially with such a horrible environmental disaster which can cause a lot of anger and negative opinions, but you were able to keep that neutral tone.