User:Atharvawadodkar/Coral reef restoration/Mayaworthing 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
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead does not appear to have been edited. The lead currently has a good introductory sentence and concisely describes the article's topic. It includes a description of the article's major sections. It is not overly detailed and is only 1 short paragraph.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. For example, my peer added a section under "propagation methods" about the process of cultivating coral polyps and coral gardening. This is descriptive and adds content to the article. The background section mentioned "Coral polyps" and it was a good idea to add how these can be used to regenerate reefs.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and does not appear to be biased toward a particular opinion. No viewpoints are over or under represented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, it just adds further knowledge on the topic. For example, statistics about coral reefs and the consequences of ocean temperatures warming are provided. The content remains neutral explaining these facts and explains the cause and effects.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by reliable sources but very few. Each paragraph only cites 1-2 sources but the content and credibility could be improved with more citations. The sources are not thorough enough as there is a lot more available literature on coral reef restoration.

Organization
The content is well-written, concise and clear. There are no grammatical errors. The content added is well-organized into the article's sections.

Images and Media
An image of a Coral Polyp was added. The image is well cited and incorporated well on the right margin. It is not distracting (very visually appealing) and it helps enhance the content/understanding of the paragraph.

Overall impressions
The content is very well written and I loved how my peer included an image. The information has contributed to the overall quality of the article and has made it more complete. The content could improve by adding more citations to each paragraph. The article could also be improved by adding more information to the lead section as it is very short and has only 1 citation.