User:Krone035/Low-Nutrient, Low-Chlorophyll (LNLC) Regions/Hugheann Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Krone035


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krone035/Low-Nutrient,_Low-Chlorophyll_(LNLC)_Regions?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, the article addresses a topic important to understanding the biogeochemical cycles of the ocean and presents useful information. The article sections are well organized with a clear and easy to follow structure and no redundant information. The inclusion of specific LNLC regions and monitoring programs was also very effective. The content of the article is generally good. The lead section is concise and effective for presenting what the article will address, although it may also be useful to add that this article discusses specific LNLC regions. Additionally, the lead section should probably define oligotrophic or provide a clear context for understanding it and should not address HNLC regions since this is not discussed anywhere else in the article. Further, I don’t know if the article needs to address coastal margins in the ‘Region characteristics’ section since these are not LNLC regions.

The article appears neutral and does not bias a particular position which is great. There did not appear to be any over or underrepresented viewpoints. The monitoring programs sections could potentially be expanded to include current projects which employ these datasets as a means of studying LNLCs, but the article is effective as is.

I couldn’t access the reference links, but they appear to be cited correctly. There are still places in the article where sources need to be corrected, but this is understandable since this is still an early draft. All facts are backed up with a source, although more sources could be included to prevent citing the same source multiple times (such as sources 11 and 20) and more recent references could be included (although this isn’t always possible). Additionally, the references appear to both be generally recent (could potentially include more recent information but this isn’t always possible) and from a broad range of source types though which is good. I don’t know if this is a new article, but if so, make sure at least 2-3 secondary sources are included

Generally, the article is organized well. The structure is effective for introducing the topic and information fundamental to understanding it, followed by sections which discuss its broader context and application. However, within sections the organization could be improved to increase effectiveness. For example, in the ‘Chlorophyll and Primary Production’ section the relation of the final paragraph to primary production is a little confusing. It could be helpful to discuss the explicit role of mixing in nutrient delivery. Although this is explained in detail well in the following section. Additionally, in the next section, ‘Region characteristics’, an explicit statement about the role of primary production in the global carbon cycle, either here or early on, could be helpful in establishing this connection between. Further, the relationship between phytoplankton community structure, production rates, and carbon export could also be clarified. The final paragraph of this section also appears a little out of place. Dust should be mentioned with nutrient sources and nitrogen fixation might be more effective to discuss in the context of specific LNLC regions.

In general, there is a lot of great content, and the broad categories reflect an effective approach. Organization within sections could be improved and the article should we edited for grammar and formatting, but this is an early draft and a great start!