User:ClimateGuardian/Nonpoint source pollution/Djfocus24 Peer Review

General info
Trey Tibman and Climateguardian
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ClimateGuardian/Nonpoint source pollution
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Nonpoint source pollution

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead was not edited in the draft, but I read through it on the main article and it sounds good. It gives a nice overview of the topic and what sections will be covered next.

Sediment Section Review

The additions to your sediment paragraph does help develop the thought and I think it was a useful addition. You added a paragraph that describes Sedimentation which sounds great, but some things from that paragraph and the one above seem to repeat. I think the information is useful, but could be condensed and less repetitive. At the bottom it also shows the "3.Turbidity and sediment dynamics". EcoShape - EN. Retrieved 2024-03-27." source twice and I am assuming it is just an error.

Nutrients Added Citations Edit

The added citations are credible and useful sources. However, I think it may be important to include more than one per paragraph. One is better than none, but the Wiki training said that it is important to include frequent citations.

Additionally I do really like the hyperlinks to all the difficult words, it provides very useful for readers and it is something I would like to include more in my article.

Pathogens Source Update

Your modifications to the sourcing in the paragraph from the Pathogens section was excellent. You provided a new, credible, and reliable source, while also removing the source that did not link to anything.

Toxic Contaminants and Chemicals Review

The new leading sentence for the first paragraph makes sense, but then seems to not really translate to organic or inorganic chemicals that follow. If it could be more organized to describe which are organic and inorganic chemicals, that would make it a bit easier to understand in my opinion. The second paragraph does a good job with this, and I like the newly improved topic sentence.

I am not sure whether in this passage "These compounds can threaten the health of both humans and aquatic species while being resistant to environmental breakdown, thus allowing them to persist in the environment. These compounds can also be present in the air and water environments, causing damage to the environment and risking harmful exposure to living species." you are trying to replace the first sentence with the bolded second one. Either way, they both seem to demonstrate the same message. It was useful that you updated the citation for the section. Although the 3 paragraphs are all missing the working citations from the original article.

The added pieces also seem to be worded a little weird, and could be revised to sound better. They convey the message, but could be reworded slightly.

For the final paragraph in this section, I like the addition you made, but you should include a citation.

Urban and Suburban Areas Section Review

This section does a great job at explaining Urban runoff. I see from the original article that this section you copied along with the paragraph that follows both had a warning that needed an added citation. I see you added an example and included a citation to it which is great and I think it adds wonderfully to the paragraph. The only issue is that the content above that added example still needs a citation. Along with the paragraph that follows (which you do not have copied in your sandbox draft. Other than missing citations, this section does a great job at explaining urban runoff! Your added example is excellent as well.

Agricultural operations Review

This section sounds really great. Aside from the issues I mentioned above where you lost some of the original citations for parts you didn't change, it sounds great. Your additions for each part of the section really helps direct the information and makes it flow better. As long as you add back the previous citations, this section sounds really good. The citations you added for this section are also very credible and reliable. My own personal suggestion would be to also add hyperlinks to things like DDT and other chemicals or harder concepts. Aside from that good job!

General Overview of Entire Original Article

From a overview of you article, I see there are still sections that need revised or new citations. This should be an easy fix and if you keep up what you have been doing previously, by adding citations and adding a little bit of new information, I think you are on track for a great article.

I would also try to add a few country examples at the end of your article. That section currently only includes information on the United States. It is also organized strangely, and a few simple headings or maybe extra sections could really improve the layout.

Aside from a few minor changes, your article has a nice layout and I feel like it really does a good job at explaining a topic like Non-point source pollution. Each idea has an appropriate amount of weight and conveys what is needed for basic understandings.