User:Jimzhen21/Common-pool resource/SaraParkwood Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JimZhen21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimzhen21/Common-pool_resource?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Common-pool resource

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.)

Common property systems section:

I really Iike how concise the ideas are in this section and how you give the readers tangible examples. I would suggest separating the definition of resource units into a different paragraph instead of mixing it together with the discussion of resource systems to make the two ideas clearer and more distinct.

Institutional Factors in the management of common-pool resources section:

Maybe title this section "Influential Factors..." instead of "Institutional Factors...."? That way you can take out the "Influence of" in each subsection heading, too.

You do cite a couple of other authors, but the sentence:

Elinor Ostrom believes that there are four variables that are very important for local common-pool resource management: (1) characteristics of the resource; (2) characteristics of the resource-dependent group; (3) details of the resource management system; (4) The nature of the relationship between groups, external forces and authorities.

makes it seem like this entire section is based off of the theory of one researcher. Since Wikipedia trainings seem to emphasize having a broad array of perspectives, you could bring up a few more researchers or chase the phrasing of this sentence?

I also noticed that a couple of your sentences might benefit by adding a citation to the end of them, like the first sentence of your external forces section (just make it clear which scholars you are referencing).

Other than that, the only major change I would make is getting rid of the conclusion section--it seems more like something we would have in an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. Overall, great job!

Oh, additional note: what edits did you make on the definition matrix?