User:Chelsei.L/Oyster reef restoration/Kith98 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chelsei.L


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chelsei.L/Oyster_reef_restoration?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Peer Evaluation
Throughout the article, I believe that the author talks from a first person perspective rather than remaining unbiased and stating only the facts. There are a few facts presented in this article, but no concrete evidence is included to support their claims. In addition, I don't really see any connection between the topic of this article and the urban environment. The data on countries is quite extensive, however, there is a lack of information on urban life in water relating to the cities. According to my understanding, this is a requirement for the assignment.

As far as I am aware, the lead of the article has not been updated by my classmates. I believe it was last edited by the authors of the original article. I believe the lead sentence could be less wordy and focus more on the idea they would like to discuss in the body of the essay. Despite the fact that the lead does include a brief description of what the article is about, the lead needs to be updated since new information has been added to the article.

The content of the article is relevant to the topic at hand. The authors of the paper included a lot of clear, concise information, both in regards to the environment as well as about the oysters themselves. From its anatomy to how its feeding process contributes to the ecosystem of the oceans, we can learn a lot about this creature. In general, the information seems to be up to date, but there are a few references listed that are very old.

Despite the fact that there is a great deal of information, it is extremely easy to understand. A thorough explanation is provided of any concepts that may be more complex. They did a great job of breaking down information bit by bit by region by region and I really appreciated it

The text should also be rewritten chronologically, in my opinion. For instance, at some points, the authors explain the idea before presenting the idea to the reader. In my opinion, they are on topic, but the way they are written seems to be a bit scattered at times. It is my belief that it is due to the fact that they are adding to an already existing article, rather than starting from scratch.

Throughout the article, I believe that the author talks from a first person perspective rather than remaining unbiased and stating only the facts. There are a few facts presented in this article, but no concrete evidence is included to support their claims. In addition, I don't really see any connection between the topic of this article and the urban environment. The data on countries is quite extensive, however, there is a lack of information on urban life in water relating to the cities. According to my understanding, this is a requirement for the assignment. I do believe that there is a need to reevaluate grammar as well.