User:Ghostpants321/Sea rewilding/Mbrookemac Peer Review

General info
Ghostpants321
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ghostpants321/Sea_rewilding?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sea rewilding

Evaluate the drafted changes
Good job on the article, I think you made great additions that will help to improve the topic balance in the article since the original is short and very underdeveloped. My biggest tip to improve the article is to focus on grammar and spelling because that will affect how well the information is conveyed. One thing I do is re-read my work with fresh eyes in the morning or a couple hours later. I find that I look over mistakes the longer I work on something so sometimes I'll get someone to read and highlight all the mistake I've made so I can come back and fix them. Be sure to double check the information you're citing and the format of the citation. If you keep going on this path (meaning expanding the topics) I think the article will be great in no time!

Lead

The lead could use a lot of development because it does not include any background or summary of what will be covered in the article. Another aspect that could be improved is the definition itself, it states, "Sea rewilding (also known as marine rewilding) is an area of environmental conservation activity which focuses on rewilding, restoring ocean life and returning seas to a more natural state." It's generally not good practice to include part of what's being defined, sea rewilding, in the definition (describes it by saying it focuses in wilding). - As the lead was written by someone before you, this would be a great way to improve it for the next update!

Content

Most of the content is up-to-date, most sources are from recent years (<5 years old), and the added content is all relevant to the topic. There is missing content due to how underdeveloped the article is (see comments below for some suggestions!) but added content works to broaden topic. The topic does not address any equity group, however, may in the future if new sections are added (often restoration projects involve indigenous communities and this would touch on an equity group).

Tone and Balance

You do a great job at maintaining a neutral tone, specifically when addressing more controversial topics like deep sea mining. I didn't find that in it you made any ethical judgements on deep sea mining as a whole but simply presented how it is a challenge to sea rewilding. The article at its current state is very unbalanced in terms of what information is available but your additions definitely helped to improve balance! The article balance will improve with more edits and achieving a balanced article when your original was so underdeveloped wasn't possible, so don't worry about overall balance yet just on adding balance through your individual topics.

Sources and References

Under the 'native oysters' section "It has been demonstrated that restoring historic oyster beds improves water quality." is uncited. Since your cited information does not state that water quality improved, this could be considered an uncited fact. Most cited facts seems to be supported by the information in that article however under 'public awareness and engagement' it is unclear how citation 22 supports the statement. I can't find information in the article on public awareness or laws/regulations. There is a mix of academic and non-academic sources. Some of the topics may need some digging but academic sources would help to add a lot a validity to your statements. There is also a mix of more up to date and less recent studies however the oldest I saw was 2009 and so if new information isn't available then that's not too out of date to include.

A lot of paragraphs tend to end in uncited information like "The process in deep sea mining consist of assessing the area, resource assessment, exploration then extracting." under 'deep sea mining'.

The formatting of your references should be updated, some are missing information like author and year. Wikipedia can't always find all the information when you upload the citation so you may need to update it manually. When you create your sources, there's an option to re-use a citation and this can be done to get rid of repeating citations in the reference section (e.g. references 3, 4, 5, and 6). Additionally, in-text citations should be put after the period when publishing on Wikipedia.

Organization

You seemed to have stopped in the middle of your sentence under 'background'. I can see you started to type something about climate change and overfishing and you seem to address climate change later in the article under 'challenges' however I don't see a section on overfishing and I think that could be a good addition to the article. I also think it's okay to add a section under 'overview' about the current state of restoration efforts (challenges, current successes, and future perspectives), I would just be mindful not to go into too much detail on aspects you touch on later. For example, it may be beneficial to mention that climate change and deep sea mining are challenges sea rewilding face but don't describe how specifically it is affecting restoration efforts.

The sections you added are great! There are a couple of quick spelling/grammar mistakes I found and some of them affect the clarity of the article. For example, the section 'Habitat restorations' could be better described as 'habitat restoration methods/techniques', 'Animal reintroduce' should be 'Animals that have been reintroduced' or to be more concise you can say 'Reintroduced species' (which is the more correct scientific term)- these don't affect clarity. Under your 'challenges' and 'carbon capture' sections, there are spelling errors like "ecossytems" so this section could use a review- this does affect clarity.

There are a number of quotes within the article and when possible it would be better to paraphrase and explain how the information fits into your topic. Sometimes the quote seemed to be added but then there was no connection so it caused the article to feel more choppy. For example under 'aquaculture' it states, 'By using farming and other forms of nurseries in an artificial environment, it can enable domesticated species to "subsequent large-scale rewilding may form a successful shortcut to restore threatened keystone species and their vital ecosystem services"' by quoting instead of paraphrasing, the readability goes down because it is not grammatically correct.

For structure I would change where the sections are placed because this may help with the flow of the article. For example, marine protected areas could probably be considered as a method of restoration (maybe under human activities because we as a species determine what is a MPA). Carbon capture seems to be randomly placed in the article and should probably be part of a greater section potentially under overview or a new section called 'effects of sea rewilding'

Additionally, some of the formatting like spacing should be fixed because it will help with the readability and consistent structure of Wikipedia articles. e.g. take out space between 'mangrove trees' and 'animal reintroduce'.

Images and Media

There weren't any images added but if you wanted to break up some text with a visual it might help to keep readers stimulated and interested as the article gets further developed and, as a consequence, longer.