User:Ghostpants321/Sea rewilding/Atticusdarwin Peer Review

General info
Ghostpants321
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ghostpants321/Sea rewilding
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sea rewilding:

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.)

The article lead accurate reflects information in the entire article. The introduction of the lead gives a good description of the article and lets the viewer know the main sections of the article. For the most part everything discussed in the lead can be found in the rest of the article. The lead is well made, I do not consider it overly detailed nor does it have too many words.

The content added is up to date and is related to the topic. The original wiki article is brief with links to access more information but this user's article adds a lot of key information and descriptors for someone who is looking into this topic. There isn't a clear example of any missing topics so therefore if someone is looking into Sea Rewilding this article contains a good chunk of information to dissect and I would consider it a very useful page.

The tone of the article is neutral and the content is well balanced. Every important section has subsections that go into more detail and it seems as every section is covered with similar amounts of care. There isn't a section that is too short or too detailed compared to the others (apart from marine protected areas but this is a draft so it is understandable).

When looking into the references there seems to be 30+ reliable articles. The majority of them were published within the last 5 years, making them good up to date sources. Upon looking closer, many of the articles are also scientific journals or scholarly articles that are peer reviewed, adding more validity to the references and content within the article. The viewpoints are neutral and unbiased and do not influence the viewer. Many of the references used help with content for specific sections. This means that a lot of information provided in the article is backed up by three or more sources. Within the article you can find many other associated links as well as information externally to read more about the topic in organizations and extra readings. The new information added compared to the original article makes for a more in depth experience when reading about the topic.

Overall for a draft, the quality of the original article is believed to be improved, apart from a few missing words in the "Background" section and the "Marine Protected Areas" section could also do with more information being added. There are no clear grammatical or formatting errors. The main strengths of the article are the expansions on sections discussed from the original article. A lot more information is provided for these areas.