User:Hugheann/Seaweed fertiliser/BrightPe Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kellyshan31, hugheann, Merrilju, and maybe one more


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kellyshan31/Seaweed_Fertilizer?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Seaweed fertiliser - Wikipedia

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.)

Lead

 * Looks like the lead is still under construction. Good one sentence, but would be good to expand it to quickly cover the cliff notes of all of your sections. Understandably this is close to the last step of the process because everyone needs to add their information.

Content

 * Very thorough article, I appreciated the history section at the beginning.
 * The information is really specific, very thorough, but also pretty dense. In certain areas I think it would be possible to take a step backwards and summarize for a less science oriented reader, although you have really good information. Just an observation to consider.
 * Information appeared to be up-to-date and very thorough, I thought each section added to the overall narrative.

Tone and Balance

 * The overall tone of this article is great, not many claims, just stating confirmed ideas and narrating the topic rather than presenting it.
 * As noted earlier, the level of reader that this article is targeting is pretty high. For example in the paragraphs about nutrient cycling and nutrient limitation, the information gets dense around the processes of DIC, nutrients, and so on. There is a lot of great information there and I for one learned quite a bit reading it, but I wonder if it is to detailed for the recreational reader? Many times the processes are explained, but occasionally not, for example, "...reaches a value of 9, almost all DIC is in the form of carbonate (CO32-) and is therefore unavailable for use by most seaweed species, limiting the supply of inorganic carbon to seaweeds in highly productive systems with a lot of DIC uptake." Why is carbonate unavailable to seaweed species? It would almost be impossible to explain all the processes involved here, but I thought it might help to consider the tone a bit.
 * The tone of the article is very neutral, both the benefits and drawbacks were discussed for seaweed fertilizers. The positives traits of the practice were more expanded upon than the negatives (invasive species importation, ect..) but both were mentioned.

Organization

 * I thought the content of this article was super thorough, and to me it seemed that rearranging it would make it flow a little bit better. For example, I think overall that the Taxonomy section should come directly after the lead, because it really defined what was being talked about. The history section would follow nicely after that, followed by the crop yield and quality and ecosystem services sections. I suggest this because as I was reading it, I felt that I got super detailed information on the "how and what" before I got a good explanation of the "why."
 * As far as grammar and spelling, the article was well proof-read and I didn't catch many errors. I did feel however that there were some comma heavy sentences that could be split up, but that is personal preference more than grammatical mistakes.

Images

 * I think some cool seaweed images and farming pictures would add a lot to this article. Once everyone figures out how to add images, I would suggest adding some to your article.

Overall Impressions

 * Great job! Really this is a good article. I think that your information seeking part of the project is done, you have plenty here to work with. Now organization and image adding would be the best use of time to produce more quality it seems to me. Also, remember to go and add a bit to the lead to summarize all that you have added to the article.
 * The new page dwarfs the old page, which seems to have spelt "fertiliser" wrong even..? Make sure it is correct one way or the other. But the strength of the new article is in its attention to detail and the description of the processes involved in the use of seaweed fertilizers, where the old article simply pointed the reader to other articles and summarized what seaweed fertilizers are quickly.
 * As I read the article, I felt that the topic was presented thoroughly and the information is complete.