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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chelsei.L, Eco144, KMorales34


 * 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Lead: 

The lead presents a concise description of what oyster restoration is. This section includes information that is not present later in the article: “Porcelain, concrete, various fossilized shells, and limestone are frequently used materials to construct an oyster reef.” There is no further mention of the different types of materials used for substrates. It might help to explain the different types and where/why they are used somewhere in the article.

 Content: 

The content is up to date. All the sources are from the last 3 years which helps strengthen the article. Under “ecosystem” the information from the original Wikipedia page is used and then taken into further detail in a way that I found helpful to better understand the topic.

Under “Europe '' the sentence “Historically, the rapid decline in oyster reefs was the result of overfishing and exploitation of efficient fishery practices for centuries which eventually led to oyster fishing as an inviable and unprofitable source of economic value.” It would help to give some of the historical examples instead of having the reader look to find these examples in the sources.

Under “Techniques” the sentence “Expanding not only the population of oyster reefs but also the locality of them will help secure the extent of this species.” This sentence would be more relevant in the “goals '' tab. On the Wikipedia page the technique section only explains the techniques used, not why expanding oyster reefs are important. At the end of “techniques” the word “unfortunately” is used which Wikipedia would consider as a tone and they ask that the articles be written tone neutral.

 Overall Impression: 

Majority of the information added by the group does a good job at giving more detail to the already existing Wikipedia article. Aside from what I noted, the article follows many of the guidelines that Wikipedia is looking for in their articles. There is some informational overlap in areas where sentences can be cleaned up. For example, under “Goals” there’s a sentence that says, “the typical desired outcomes…” and the next sentence is “the goal is…”, which is a little confusing. It's an easy fix and it’s something to be expected when there are 3 different people working on the same thing. There are also minor grammatical errors that could be fixed with a couple of proofreads.

I like how content from the original article was posted and then edited, it’s something my group didn’t do and looks like a helpful way to organize- going forward I’m going to suggest this to my group.