User:Atharvawadodkar/Coral reef restoration/Margaretbhanna Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Atharvawadodkar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atharvawadodkar/Coral_reef_restoration?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
This peer review is based on the suggested format (Guiding questions) provided by Wikipedia.

Lead

You did not modify the lead section (which is totally fine, I am just following the Wikipedia peer review format). Should you choose to, though, there are a few improvements to be made. The lead's introductory sentence is good, but the lead section as a whole does not introduce the major sections of the article. It seems to only cover the "Propagation methods" section. To improve, the lead section should briefly talk about the importance of coral reefs (from "Background), the threats that apply to them (from "Threats to coral reefs") and the various restoration strategies (from "Restoration strategies"). Further, the lead section only contains 1 citation. It would be important to make sure that the rest of the information is cited as well.

Content

I am a bit confused as to where your sandbox draft additions for "Propagation methods" go. Coral gardening seems to be mentioned under "Restoration strategies" and the few sentences you added would work well as a definition of the term. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to put these sentences there instead. However, be sure to site them first. As well, I have found a Wikipedia article titled "Aquaculture of coral" that may be a good link to add to "Coral gardening" as it is a synonym.

Similarly, the article also already discusses land-based and ocean-based nurseries under "Marine based" and "Land based", respectively. I do believe some of your work can be used as a start for an intro paragraph for the "Propagation methods" section to introduce the methods discussed. I also think that you provided good definitions of both terms. Your definitions could definitely replace the missing/limited definitions already in the article. Be sure to cite all the information that is not yours. In this case every sentence or every other sentence should be cited.

In the second paragraph of your sandbox draft, you use the word "Additionally" twice in a row. Maybe try replacing one of them with: Furthermore, Moreover... The last sentence in your "Propagation methods" additions lacks a bit of clarity. Did the NOAA use land-based or ocean-based nurseries to restore over 40,000 coral reefs? If this statistic does not pertain to those types of restoration methods, perhaps you should put it somewhere else. And if it does, it is worth mentioning

Moreover, make sure to specify where you want your additions to go within the article. Your second edit is from the "Threats to coral reefs" section. This makes it easier for peer reviewer to understand what you are trying to do. I think that you have some very good information in your "Expanding" paragraph, but I am not sure all of it belongs in the "Threats to coral reefs section" You raise a really good point when demonstrating just how many people live near coral reefs and how many people depend on them. While I don't think that this fits into the "Threats to coral reefs section", I believe that you could make that into a section of its own and elaborate on it. Just as a suggestion, perhaps the section could be called: "Ecosystem services". The Wikipedia page on coral reefs has a section with the same title that you could refer to.

As for your last edit (adding a citation), once again, be sure to mention what section you copied from to make it easier for peer reviewers to find. Good job on adding a citation though!

Overall, you can enrich the article by adding some links to other Wikipedia articles. Another example (in addition to the 2 already given above) is: coral bleaching.

Tone and balance

I think you did a really good job at staying objective, neutral, non-biased and non-persuasive.

Sources and references

Good job on adding a few sources. All the links work and most of the sources are fairly current. The first source refers to the image you added. It is from Wikimedia Commons, which is a good source for non-copyrighted images. The second source, however, is a website, which is not the most credible source of information. The third source is an official organization website, which is alright since you only use it when referring to the organization. The fourth source is excellent because it is a peer-reviewed scientific article. The fifth source seems to be a website blog article, which is not ideal. The article does mention some good information, but I suggest you try finding the original source of those facts instead of citing this website. Credible sources of information can be found using Google Scholar, the MacOdrum library website and other places that give you access to scientific articles and journals. For example, I found this scientific article using the Macodrum library website (I have included the citation): Van Oppen, M. J. H., & Lastra, M. A. (2022). Coral reef conservation and restoration in the omics age (M. J. H. Van Oppen & M. A. Lastra, Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Organization

The content you added is well-written and I did not spot any grammar/spelling mistakes. As you chose to edit small parts of different sections, it is hard to say whether your paragraphs flow well with each other. It is also a bit difficult to understand your intentions in terms of where exactly you want to add certain things and what you mean by expand (like replace the original paragraph or add it underneath).

Images and Media

I am not sure where exactly you plan on adding this image, so I am not sure I understand its relevancy. It does not seem to fit into any particular section other than maybe the "Background". As mentioned above, the image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image is well captioned for what it is, but if you want to keep the image, perhaps think of a way to relate it to a certain section of the article.

Overall impressions

Overall, you added some really good content like the definitions of ocean-based/land-based nurseries and you brought up interesting points about greenhouse gas emissions and people depending on corals. To improve, I would try and find some more credible sources like scientific journal articles. I also think it would enrich the article if you added some links (suggestions above) to other Wikipedia pages. Lastly, it is important to cite each sentence that is not yours and not just the end of a paragraph.