User:Brbs4303/Seawater/Sarahbrown5 Peer Review

General info
Brbs4303
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Brbs4303/Seawater
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Seawater

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The current lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes sea water, and does include information about the major sections of the article. As well all the facts presented in the lead to introduce seawater are expanded upon throughout the different sections of the article. The current lead for this article is well written and in my opinion does not need to be edited in any significant way, however it has not yet been updated to accurately reflect the content which has been added.

Content:

All the content added is relevant to the topic of seawater, and adds a layer of detail that is important is fully understanding the different aspects/features of seawater. In my opinion all the content is also up to date considering a majority of the sources used have been published within the last 5 years, and are most likely presenting the most accurate information available on the topic given this. The current article and the addition also do not obviously seem to have missing parts and/or content that does not belong within the article. this article, to my knowledge, does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and/or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:

Most of the content added is neutral, and in my opinion there does not seem to be any claims which appear heavily biased towards a particular position. However, something that should be looked at is the use of "some suggest" in the sentence (Some suggest that a more environmentally friendly approach to mining that allows for more sustainability would be to extract these metal from the seafloor.), because there is no source provided and could be seen as biased based on not knowing what "some" is referring to. I believe the information about seawater is fairly and proportionately covered given the available literature on the topic, as well there does not seem to be any viewpoints which are specifically overrepresented or underrepresented. I also do not believe that the content added attempts to persuade the reader in favour of one position and/or away from another in any way.

Sources and References:

Almost all the content is backed up by reliable secondary sources, however there are a couple of instances where it looks like conclusion are drawn with proper evidence/sources provided. For instance the line "Some suggest that a more environmentally friendly approach to mining that talons for more sustainability would be to exact these metals from the seafloor." This line, as I have mentioned before may be seen as biased given the use of "some suggest" and because there is no source provided to back it up. It could also be beneficial to work the follow sections, "Levin (2019) explains, "A strong dependence of deep-sea species on specific hydrographic and geochemical environmental conditions suggests that physical disturbances that alter flow, substrate, fluid flux, or geochemistry will have profound effects on animal communities." Therefore, it is important to weigh both the benefits and the risks associated with seawater mineral and element extractions as even minor disturbances can have long term effects on underwater ecosystems." Here a quote is used which can work within a Wikipedia page but it is not recommended, and the last sentence seems to draw a conclusion without providing evidence or a source to back it up. In my opinion the sources used are some of the best sources available on the topic given that they are all reliable secondary sources and a majority were published within the last 5 years, meaning it is likely that the information is accurate. The content added is also thorough and reflect well what is discussed within the provided sources, and easy access to the sources is given with the live links.

Organization:

In my opinion, all the content added is concise, clear, and easy to refer, over making it a well written addition to the article. As well, the content added not not, to my knowledge have any grammatical or spelling errors. With that being said, since the entire article was not copied into the sandbox, I cannot accurately say whether or not the content added is well organized and/or how it flows with the rest of the article, because I was not sure where exactly in the article the additions will be presented. However, if the added content is put at the end of the current article I believe it would be well organized and flow well with the other main sections of the article.

Overall Impressions:

The content added has definitely contributed to the completeness of the article as a whole. Adding the section about environmental impact and sustainability specifically I believe is very important given the topic and is an excellent addition to the article. The content added would be improved by, like I have mentioned above, ensuring the article is remaining neutral throughout its entirety and ensuring all content added has a source to back it up. My only other suggestion would be to clean up the actual references list to make it a little more clear, because I noticed that two of the same sources appear in the references lists multiple times instead of being "reused" of a reference. Overall this is a great addition to the article with only a few minor edits and added citations needed.